2 or “Trinidad and Tobago”) for violations to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) in the case of Caesar, I developed very specific concerns about the attitude of said State Party to the Organization of American States (hereinafter “the OAS” or “the Organization”) towards the performance of its international obligations regarding the role played by the InterAmerican Commission and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission” and “the Court” or “the InterAmerican Court”) in the Inter-American human rights protection system. As Court Secretary from 2000 to 2003, I felt identical concerns during proceedings in the Case of Hilaire, Constantine, Benjamin et al. against the aforementioned State, which I am able now to state explicitly in my capacity as Judge of the instant case. 2. Firstly, it is worth recalling that Trinidad and Tobago deposited its instrument of ratification of the American Convention on May 28, 1991, with the General Secretariat of the OAS and on the same date, the State recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court. Later, pursuant to Article 78 of the American Convention, the State denounced such jurisdiction; that denouncement became effective one year later, on May 26, 1999. Consequently, at that time, the Court held it had jurisdiction to hear the Case of Hilaire, Constantine, Benjamin et al., and the present case of Winston Caesar, since the events involved in all such cases occurred prior to the effective date of the denunciation effected by the State. 3. It is also worth noticing the fact that while, between 1997 and 2000, the State submitted to the Inter-American Commission briefs related to the Case of Hilaire, Constantine, Benjamin et al.; in the case of Caesar, Trinidad and Tobago, after it had filed the denunciation with the Commission on May 13, 1999, did not file with this conventional protection organ any brief on its admissibility, despite the Commission’s requests to such effect, and further failed to submit the information requested by the Commission during the procedures on the merits of the case. On October 10, 2001, the Inter-American Commission approved Report No. 88/01 on Admissibility and, on October 10, 2002, issued Report No. 35/02 on the Merits of the Case. Lastly, on February 16, 2003, the Commission brought the case to the jurisdiction of the Court. 4. It is to be pointed out as well that, despite the fact that Trinidad and Tobago did appear before the Court in the initial procedures of the Case of Hilaire, Constantine, Benjamin et al., and raised preliminary objections as to the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the case; once the Court overruled said preliminary objections on September 1, 2001,1 and assumed jurisdiction, the State, in the proceedings on the merits before the Court, failed to respond to the application, to appoint representatives and to appoint a Judge ad hoc. Similar circumstances occurred during the proceedings on the merits of the case of Caesar before the Inter-American Court. 5. After the Court delivered judgment on the merits and reparations in the three cases mentioned above on June 21, 2002,2 the State has not submitted to the Court any information on its compliance with the judgment, despite the serious nature of 1 I/A Court H.R. Hilaire Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 80; I/A Court H.R., Benjamin et al. Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 81; and I/A Court H.R., Constantine et al. Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 82. 2 I/A Court H.R., Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94.