Party correct those matters, which gave rise to a substantive breach so that others do not suffer the same violation in future. However it is submitted that the Commission, either directly or by its recommendation, has no power to alter the lawful sentence imposed by a court of a State Party. (Emphasis added). 12. In its response to the petition, the State informed the Commission that the "Instructions Relating to Applications from Persons under Sentence of Death issued by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago on 13 October 1997, are deemed to apply to the communication of Wilson Prince. Case No. 12.005."1 In addition, the State pointed out that: ... in order for any recommendation by the Commission to be considered by the Minister of National Security when advising His Excellency the President of the exercise of the prerogative of His Excellency the President, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago respectfully requests the Commission to submit its determination in respect of this communication within a period of six months from the date of the despatch of this response by the State party. In other words, the State requested that the Commission issue a decision on the merits in this case within a period of six months from June 14, 1998, or by December 14, 1998. According to the State, the decision of the Commission would be considered by the Minister of National Security when advising the President as to whether he should exercise the prerogative of mercy. Unlike in other legal systems where the prerogative of pardon is considered part of the domestic process, in Trinidad and Tobago the international instance is used to inform the domestic process. IV. ANALYSIS A. Competence 13. Trinidad and Tobago is a State party to the American Convention, having ratified the treaty on May 28, 1991. The petition alleges violations of human rights set forth in the Convention, which the Commission is competent to review. B. Requisites for the admissibility of the petition a. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies 14. The Government of Trinidad and Tobago stated in its response, dated June 14, 1998, that: In the interests of expediency (...) notwithstanding the failure of the Applicant to first seek redress for his grievances by way of a Constitutional Motion before the domestic courts of Trinidad and Tobago, except as herein expressly provided, the State Party raises no challenge to the admissibility of this communication based on the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule(...). (Emphasis added) Accordingly, the Commission understands that the State expressly and irrevocably waives any challenge with respect to remedies invoked, or remedies that could potentially be invoked, by petitioner in domestic legal proceedings in connection with this case. 15. In this case, in regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Commission takes this opportunity to reiterate its doctrine of non consideration of constitutional motions as effective remedies which must be exhausted, since they neither comply with the requirements set forth in Article 8 of the American Convention, nor with the jurisprudence of the Inter American Court.2 b. Timely filing 1 It is interesting to note that the Government of Trinidad and Tobago referred to the Instructions issued on October 13, 1997 as being the applicable Instructions, despite the fact that new Instructions were issued on June 4, 1998. 2 See I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, at paras. 62, 64 and 88;see also I/A Court H.R., "Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Art. 46(1), 46(2)(a) and (2)(b) American Convention on Human Rights", Advisory Opinion, OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990 at para. 31; Report No. 90/98, Case 11.843, Kevin Mykoo (Jamaica) at para. 35; see also ("Accordingly, in prior cases .the Commission has found that the absence of legal aid to file a constitutional motion may render that recourse essentially unavailable to an indigent applicant.") Report Nº 96/98, Case Nº 11.827, Peter Blaine (Jamaica) at para. 60; and cf. ("With respect to the authors’ possibility of filing a constitutional motion, the Committee considered that in the absence of legal aid, a constitutional motion did not constitute an available remedy in the case.") Comm. No. 445/1991, Champagnie et al. v. Jamaica (views of 18 July 1994), Report of the UNHRC (1994), GAOR, 49 th Sess., Supp. No. 40 (A/49/40), Vol. II at p. 136, 139 para. 5.2. 3