5 On August 28, 1998, the Court held at its seat the public hearing it had summoned. After hearing the observations of the Commission, the Court, issued an Order on August 29, 1998, by which it ratified the Orders of its President of June 29, July 13, and July 22, 1998, and requested that Trinidad and Tobago take all of the measures necessary to preserve the life and physical integrity of Wenceslaus James, Anthony Briggs, Anderson Noel, Anthony Garcia, Christopher Bethel, Darrin Roger Thomas, Haniff Hilaire and Denny Baptiste, so as not to hinder the processing of their cases before the Inter-American system. Said Order was communicated to the State. On September 1, 1998, the State informed that in the future it will not consult with the Court or the Commission any further in these matters. As of the date of drafting the present Report, the State has not presented any of the periodic reports that were ordered by the Court in its August 29, 1998, Order, despite constant requests by the Tribunal regarding this matter.5 The Court has verified the refusal of the State to recognize the obligatory nature of the Court’s decisions in this matter, and in particular, its lack of appearance before the Court despite being duly summoned, and the lack of compliance with the Orders regarding the periodic reports. Therefore, in accordance with Article 65 of the American Convention, the Court informs the General Assembly of the Organization of American States that the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights, has not complied with its decision regarding the provisional measures ordered in the James et al. Case, and as a result requests that the General Assembly urge that the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago comply with the Orders of the Court. The Court also wishes to state in this Report its concern regarding Trinidad and Tobago’s denunciation of the American Convention, which was notified to the General Secretariat on May 26, 1998. This decision, which has no precedents in the history of the Inter-American System for the protection of human rights, has no effect on the compliance of the provisional measures in accordance with Article 78(2) of the American Convention, which states that: … Such a denunciation shall not have the effect of releasing the State Party concerned from the obligations contained in this Convention with respect to any act that may constitute a violation of those obligations and that has been taken by that state prior to the effective date of denunciation. Further, the Court wishes to state in this Report that, even when an international treaty gives the right of denunciation, in dealing with human rights treaties, due to their special nature, a denunciation affects the respective international or regional system for the protection of human rights as whole. In this particular instance, the aforesaid justifies an action on the part of the General Assembly of the Organization to motivate Trinidad and Tobago’s reconsideration of its decision.6 5 After the drafting of the 1998 Report, of February 5, 1999, the State of Trinidad and Tobago sent a communication to the Court requesting confirmation of the measures adopted in favor of Mr. Anthony Briggs, which had been suspended as a result of the Inter-American Commission’s Report No. 64/98 of November 3, 1998. In that respect, the State alleged that said report had been submitted to the Advisory Pardon Committee, which would “review the Commission’s recommendation regarding the compensation and consideration for release or remittance of sentence in the case of Mr. Anthony Briggs during its next session.” 6 I/A Court H.R., 1998 Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.43 Doc. 11, pages. 35, 36 and 37.