CONCURRING SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SERGIO GARCÍA RAMÍREZ IN THE HILAIRE, CONSTANTINE AND BENJAMIN ET AL. CASE VS. TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO OF JUNE 21, 2002 1 1. The most relevant and complex issue in this case concerns the incompatibility of the Offences Against the Person Act of Trinidad and Tobago, of April 3, 1925 referred to in the Judgment as the Offences Against the Person Act 2 - with the American Convention on Human Rights. In this respect, the Court unanimously held - together with the concurrence of this Separate Opinion - that the above domestic law is incompatible with Article 4, paragraphs 1 and 2, of said Convention. This implies, in light of Article 2 of the Pact of San José, that the State must adopt the pertinent measures - in these circumstances, of a legislative character, given that the violation results from a legislative act, which in turn governs other actions under it - in order to bring its domestic legal order in conformance with the stipulations of the American Convention. 2. The foregoing conclusion is reached, notwithstanding any of the following: a) that Trinidad and Tobago would have become a State party to the Convention and would have accepted the Court's compulsory jurisdiction subject to certain reservations or limiting declarations with respect to its jurisdiction; b) that the State would have denounced the Convention on May 26, 1998; and c) that the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago, of 1976, would prevent any norm preceding its entry into force - like the Offences Against the Person Act, of 1925 - from constitutional challenge. In effect, the Court has examined and dismissed - in part - the effectiveness of the reservation or limiting declaration formulated by Trinidad and Tobago, finding that due to its excessively general character 3 it runs contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, and broadly subordinates the jurisdictional function of the Court to domestic norms and to the decisions of national organs, thereby contravening principles of international law. 4 The Tribunal has likewise resolved in part - that the State has obligated itself to observe the Convention with respect to sub judice case, even as it denounced the Treaty on May 26, 1998, taking effect May 26, 1999 - pursuant to Article 78 of the Convention - given that the 1 This Opinion was written in Spanish language and translated into English by the Secretariat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 2 Offences Against the Person Act, of April 3, 1925, applied by the State's domestic courts in considering and resolving various murder cases subject to the death penalty, joined - for the purpose of the present judgment by the Inter-American Court - in the Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago Case. 3 In this respect, the reservation made by the State was conceived in the following terms: "As regards Article 62 of the Convention, the Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago recognizes the compulsory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights as stated in said article only to such extent that such recognition is consistent with the relevant sections of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago; and provided that any judgment of the Court does not infringe, create or abolish any existing rights or duties of any private citizen." 4 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Hilaire Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001(corresponding to the judgments on preliminary objections, from the same date, rendered in the Constantine et al. and Benjamin et al. Cases), paras. 78 and ff. I issued a separate Concurring Opinion with respect to each of these judgments, on the date on which they were delivered.