3 the issues involved, among which the right to life. This made the Court, on its 2003 Annual Report, under Article 65 of the American Convention, communicated the following to the General Assembly: In “Hilaire, Constantine, Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago,” the State has not complied with the obligation to inform the Court about the measures it has adopted to comply effectively with the decision of the Court in its judgment on merits and reparations in this case. In this regard, the Court urges the OAS General Assembly to require the State of Trinidad and Tobago to inform the Court about the measures adopted to comply with its judgment.3 This communication from the Court to the General Assembly had no effect whatsoever, for reasons to be given hereinbelow. 6. Moreover, the right to life of the victims in the aforementioned cases, who had been sentenced to death, was protected through provisional measures ordered by the Court and, in spite of that, the State proceeded to execute two of them; Mr. Joey Ramiah and Mr. Anthony Briggs, in blatant contempt of the Court's orders. This happened on June 4 and July 28, 1999, respectively; therefore, in its 1999 Annual Report, the Court, also without success, communicated the following to the General Assembly: On 24 May 1999, the Court sent a note to the President of the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States, Mr. Julio César Aráoz, concerning the failure of Trinidad and Tobago to abide by the resolutions delivered by the Inter-American Court. This non-compliance, outlined in the Court’s 1998 Annual Report, had not been included in the operative part of the recommendations that the Commission on Juridical and Political Affairs of the Organization had given to the General Assembly. The Court asked the President of the Permanent Council to include an operative paragraph to be submitted to the General Assembly to urge the State Party to fulfill what had been ordered by the Court regarding the provisional measures in the Case of James et al. and also the Court asked the President of the Permanent Council to submit his note to the session that the Council was to hold the following May 26. On May 25, 1999, the Court sent a second note to the President of the Permanent Council of the OAS, acknowledging receipt of its note of the previous day and reiterating the need to include an operative paragraph on the failure of Trinidad and Tobago to comply with the mandates of the Court. This would allow the Permanent Council of the OAS to discuss the issue and make a decision. On May 28, 1999, the Court sent a note to the General Secretariat of the OAS, Mr. César Gaviria-Trujillo, addressing the failure of Trinidad and Tobago to abide by the resolutions of the Court. Because this non-compliance had not been 3 I/A Court H.R. 2003 Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.62 Doc. 1, page. 45.