10 by this Court are invoked, namely: a) the prevention of the death penalty, tabula rasa, for all murders, without consideration of the diverse characteristics which they embody, as previously stated in this Opinion: this fact - the existence of an arbitrary law - renders the sentences, and clearly, the eventual executions arbitrary; b) the application of the death penalty by means of trials that fail to satisfy, in any way, certain due process exigencies, 26 such as those concerning the resolution of the dispute within a reasonable time and the provision of adequate legal aid; c) the real ineffectiveness, in concrete cases, of the right to apply for and, it is understood, to participate and advocate for - amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence; and d) the execution of one person - Joey Ramiah who was protected under the provisional measures ordered by the Court; execution prior to there being a decision by the organs of the inter-American human rights protection system constitutes - as stated by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council - a "violation of the constitutional rights" the petitioners. 27 17. In this of line thought, I would like to comment on the violation of Article 4(6) of the Convention that is also established in the judgment. This norm, found under the "Right to Life" heading - the protected subject of the entire article made up of six paragraphs - indicates that "[e]very person condemned to death shall have the right to apply for amnesty, pardon, or commutation of sentence, which may be granted in all cases […]." Such a right - to truly be a right and not merely a declaration - assumes that the bearer of the right will have an expedited and authentic possibility to apply for and receive the revision and modification of the juridical situation created by the condemnatory judgment. It would not make sense that such a right be instituted as a pure formality, what in this case would be a trivial: a mere power to request, exhausted by the request itself. The right must possess reasonable substance and meaning. This implies that the rights-bearer must enjoy the juridical and material possibility of submitting his petition - which is a claim - to be resolved on the merits before a competent authority, and to present supporting material capable of - while it remains difficult and uncertain - a favourable outcome. This did not occur in the sub judice case, because the inmates did not have the opportunity to plead their cause using elements from trial that supported and favoured their case, or benefit from indispensable legal assistance in the processing of their case; moreover, their claims were predestined to failure: inevitably coming up against the unshakeable wall of the "mandatory" death penalty. In the situation that concerns us, the absolute ineffectiveness of the petition for amnesty, pardon or commutation may be analysed from two perspectives, equally 26 In OC-16, the Court made it clear that when due process guarantees are affected that the "imposition of the death penalty is a violation of the right not to be "arbitrarily" deprived of one's life, in the terms of the relevant provisions of the human rights treaties (eg. The American Convention on Human Rights, Article 4…) with the juridical consequences inherent in a violation of this nature i.e., those pertaining to the international responsibility of the State and the duty to make reparations." I/A Court H.R., The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, para. 137. 27 In Darrin Roger Thomas and Haniff Hilaire v. Cipriani Baptiste (Commissioner of Prisons), Evelyn Ann Peterson (Registrar of the Supreme Court) and The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago, Privy Council Appeal No. 60 of 1998 (Decision of January 27, 1999), the tribunal held: "Their Lordships declare (…) that to carry out the death sentences imposed on the appellants before the final disposal of their respective applications to the Inter-American Commission and Court of Human Rights would be a breach of their constitutional rights and order that the carrying out of the said death sentences be stayed accordingly."