4 […] The Court cannot exercise its contentious jurisdiction to apply the Convention and declare that its provisions have been violated when the alleged facts or the conduct of the defendant State which might involve international responsibility precede recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction. […] However, in case of a continuing or permanent violation, whose commencement occurred before the defendant State had recognized the Court’s contentious jurisdiction and which persists even after this recognition, the Court is competent to consider the actions and omissions that occurred after the recognition of its jurisdiction and the effects of the violations. 11. With the exception of certain matters concerning the criminal proceedings, most of the facts alleged in the Application in the present case occurred before the State´s denunciation of the Convention came into effect. Taking into account the considerations set out in the preceding paragraphs, the Court reaffirms its competence, according to the terms of Articles 62(3) and 78(2) of the Convention, to hear the present Case and render judgment. III PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 12. On May 13, 1999, the British law firm Lovells filed a petition before the InterAmerican Commission. 13. On October 10, 2001, during its 113th Regular Session, the Commission adopted Report No. 88/01, in which it found the claims in Mr. Caesar's petition to be admissible, and decided to continue with consideration of the merits of the case. 14. On October 10, 2002, during its 116th Regular Session, the Commission approved Report Nº 65/02 on the merits of the case, in which it concluded that: The State is responsible for violating Mr. Caesar’s right to humane treatment under Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, his right to be tried within a reasonable time under Article 8(1) of the Convention, and his right to judicial protection under Article 25 of the Convention, all in conjunction with violations of Article 1(1) of the Convention. In addition, the Commission finds that the State, by failing to provide for the right to be tried within a reasonable time under its domestic law and by authorizing a form of punishment that is incompatible with the right to humane treatment, is responsible for violating its obligations under Article 2 of the Convention to give domestic legal effects to the rights guaranteed under Articles 5(1), 5(2), 7(5) and 8(1) of the Convention. Based upon the information and evidence presented, the Commission did not find a violation of Mr. Caesar’s right to legal assistance under Article 8(2) of the Convention. The Commission recommended that the State: 1. 2. 3. 4. Grant Winston Caesar with an effective remedy, which includes compensation; Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the right to a trial within a reasonable time; Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to abrogate the punishment of flogging as provided for under its Corporal Punishment (Offenders Over Sixteen) Act of 1953; Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that Mr. Caesar’s conditions of detention comply with the standards of humane treatment mandated by article 5 of the Convention. 15. On November 27, 2002, the Commission transmitted Report Nº 65/02 to the State, with the request that the State report on the measures adopted to comply