35 c) d) against him, both to provide adequate reparation as well as to deter similar violations in the future; it has no objection to the submission by the representatives of Mr. Caesar regarding Mr. Caesar's early release from prison, due to the circumstances of the present case; and measures to ensure non-repetition of the violations suffered by Mr. Caesar are crucial to a just and effective resolution of the matter before the Court. In particular, the State must be compelled to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to: give effect to the right to a trial within a reasonable time under Articles 7(5) and 8(1) of the Convention; abrogate or otherwise prohibit the punishment of flogging as provided for under its Corporal Punishment Act; ensure that conditions of detention in state prisons, including those of Mr. Caesar, comply with the standards of humane treatment mandated by Article 5 of the Convention; and abrogate the “savings clause” under Section 6 of Trinidad and Tobago's Constitution, insofar as that provision denies persons effective recourse to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate their fundamental rights recognized by Trinidad and Tobago's Constitution. Arguments of the Representatives 119. The representatives claimed no sum of compensation for Mr. Caesar, considering that monetary compensation, which might normally be an appropriate remedy, would be of limited use to him in his present situation in a maximum security prison. The representatives maintained that in cases where a violation has taken place and cannot be undone, mitigation of penalty is a suitable remedy for a victim who remains in custody serving a sentence. Therefore, an appropriate remedy for the violation of Mr. Caesar's rights would be his immediate release from his sentence and that the remainder of that sentence be remitted. Moreover, as a consequence of having violated Article 2 of the Convention, the State is obliged to take the necessary measures to ensure consistency between its law and the protections under the American Convention. Finally, the representatives claimed no costs or expenses before the Court, as they are acting pro bono. The Court’s assessments 120. In accordance with the analysis set forth in previous chapters, the Court declared, based on the facts of the case, violations of Article 5(1) and 5(2) in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention, Article 2, in relation to Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, and Article 25 in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of said instrument. The Court has held, on a number of occasions, that any violation of an international obligation resulting in harm carries with it an obligation to provide adequate reparations.46 Article 63(1) of the American Convention states that: 46 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía, supra note 10, para. 230; Case of Carpio-Nicolle et al., supra note 10, para. 85; and Case of De la Cruz-Flores, supra note 16, para. 138.