11 This Honorable Court has stated that Article 63(1) of the Convention codifies a rule of customary law and constitutes one of the fundamental principles of customary law (Aloeboetoe Case, Judgment of September 10, 1993, para. 43). The obligation to repair a breach may give rise to a number of measures to remedy the consequences. The State must, to the extent possible, reestablish the status quo ante, which in the present case could be achieved by commuting the complainant’s death sentence and adjusting the domestic law of Trinidad and Tobago accordingly. Where reestablishing the status quo ante is no longer possible, the consequences must be remedied through other means. The Commission therefore seeks to obtain a decision of the Court as to the compensation owing to the victim as a result of the State’s violation of his rights under the Convention. D. Costs and expenses The Commission seeks a determination from the Court respecting the costs and expenses incurred by the representatives during the processing of the case before the domestic courts and the organs of the Inter-American system. 19) The Commission appointed Messrs. Robert K. Goldman and Nicholas Blake as delegates, and Messrs. David J. Padilla and Brian D. Tittemore as legal advisors. The Commission also designated Julian Knowles, Keir Starmer, Saul Lehrfreund, Belinda Moffat, Yasmin Waljee, and James Oury as assistants. 20) On April 14, 2000, the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”), following the preliminary examination of the application by the President of the Court, notified the State of the application and its annexes. The same date, the Secretariat, following instructions of the President, informed the State of its right to designate an ad hoc judge pursuant to Articles 18 of the Rules of Procedure, and 10(3) of the Statute of the Court (hereinafter “the Statute”). 21) On June 14, 2000, Trinidad and Tobago submitted a preliminary objection to the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in this case. The following day, the Secretariat transmitted a copy of the preliminary objection to the Inter-American Commission. 22) On July 15, 2000, the Commission responded to the communication with respect to the raising of the preliminary objection on the part of the State, which was transmitted to Trinidad and Tobago on July 17 of the same year. 23) On September 1, 2000, the Inter-American Commission waived the convening of a hearing on the preliminary objection raised by the State. On September 5, 2000, the Secretariat transmitted this communication to the State, and on September 12, 2000, requested its observations, granting it until September 29 of the same year to provide them. 24) The State did not present observations on the Commission’s petition despite the fact that the Secretariat requested the said observations again on October 2, 2000. 25) On October 9, 2000, the President of the Court issued an Order in the following terms: 1. To grant the request of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to waive the convening of a special hearing on the preliminary objection raised by the State of Trinidad and Tobago in the present Case. 2. phase. To continue with the consideration of the Constantine et al. Case at its present