-5Court reiterates that the inactivity of a State before an international human rights
jurisdiction is contrary to the objective, aim and spirit of the American Convention 29.
6.
During the stage of monitoring compliance with judgment, the Court has
established that, the breach of the State’s duty to advise constitutes non-compliance
with the treaty-based obligations pursuant to articles 67 and 68(1) 30 (supra
considering paragraph 3).
7.
Taking into consideration said non-compliance of the State, the Court has no
elements that may enable it to sustain that Trinidad and Tobago has adopted
measures directed to comply with the reparations ordered in the Judgments (supra
considering paragraph 1). In this respect, the Court considers that said noncompliance prevents the reparation of the human rights violations declared in the
Judgments.
8.
In addition to the said non-compliance of the duty to advise, the briefs brought
by the representative of the victims and the Commission in the case of Hilaire,
Constantine and Benjamin et al. (supra having seen paragraphs 5 and 6) allow the
affirmation that the compliance by Trinidad and Tobago with the reparations ordered in
the Judgments is pending (infra considering paragraphs 9 and 10). The Commission
emphasized that the victims of the case are still at risk of being executed, while the
representative of the victims stated that the mandatory death penalty is still being
imposed on those persons convicted of murder.
9.
Even though the Commission provided information regarding the measure to
“refrain from applying the Offences Against the Person Act” in the case of Hilaire,
Constantine and Benjamin et al., this information allows the reasoning that the State
has not complied with the reparation ordered. In this regard, in relation to said case,
the Court takes note of the judgments ordered by the Privy Council in the cases of
Balkissoon Roodal Vs. The State of November 20, 2003, and Charles Matthew Vs. The
State of July 7, 2004, as provided by the Inter-American Commission. In this respect,
the Court verifies that through the judgment of Balkissoon Roodal, the Privy Council
declared the annulment of the mandatory application of the death penalty 31. However,
the Court also verifies that through the judgment in the case of Charles Matthew, the
said decision established in the judgment of the case of Balkissoon Roodal was
29
Cf. Case of Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 11,
2005. Series C No. 123, para. 38, and Case of Fontevecchia and D´Amico v Argentina, Monitoring
Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 01, 2015,
ninth considering paragraph.
30
In this respect, see for example: Case of Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago. Monitoring Compliance
with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 21, 2007, eleventh
considering paragraph; Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, ninth considering paragraph; Case of Neira
Alegría et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights of January 19, 2009, nineteenth considering paragraph; Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged
and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment.
Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 28, 2015, third considering paragraph; and
Case of Fontevecchia and D’amico v. Argentina. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 01, 2015, ninth considering paragraph.
31
Said judgment provides that the mandatory death penalty is inconsistent with the international
obligations of Trinidad and Tobago based on the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man;
consequently, an interpretation consistent with the international obligations of the State should be preferred.
As a result, the Privy Council indicated that the Offences Against the Person Act should be interpreted in
such a way that would provide the discretionary application of the life sentence. Cf. Privy Council Appeal No.
18 of 2003, Balkissoon Roodal Vs. The State, November 20, 2013 (Annex to the brief presented by the
Commission on December 8, 2003, p. 21).