7. On May 11, 1998, the petitioner informed the Commission that she received a letter from Mr. Joseph Theodore, the Minister of National Security in Trinidad, in which he informs her that he has received her letter dated may 8, 1998, informing him that a petition on behalf of Wilson Prince has been filed with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. He states further that: In these circumstances, I wish to inform you that I have advised The President of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago to grant a respite of the execution of the sentence of death on Wilson Price until his further order and direction. 8. Mr. Prince is the first death row prisoner whose execution has been stayed by the Minister of National Security in Trinidad on the basis of the filing of a petition before the Commission and the request for precautionary measures. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioners 9. The petitioners stated that Mr. Prince appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and in a judgment dated October 14, 1997, it refused his application for leave to appeal. The Court of Appeals treated the application as the hearing of the appeal itself, which they accordingly dismissed and the conviction and sentence were affirmed. Mr. Prince instructed Mishcon de Reya to provide him with legal representation in petitioning the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for Special Leave to Appeal as a poor person. On March 11, 1998, Mr. Prince’s petition to the Judicial Committee was refused leave to appeal. 10. The complaint alleges that the following articles of the American Convention were violated by the State of Trinidad and Tobago to the detriment of the petitioner: Articles 4(1), 4(6), 5, 7(5), 8, and 24 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Convention" or "the American Convention"). Specifically, the petitioner alleges, inter alia, serious violations as regards the delay of two years and eleven months in bringing Mr. Prince to trial, which it is alleged deprived him of his right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. Further it is alleged that the mandatory imposition of the death penalty in all cases of murder is tantamount to cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. In addition, the petitioner alleges the violation of the right to equality before the law by the fact that Mr. Prince has no right to be heard before the Advisory Committee, that his right to life and right to a fair trial have been violated, and that his post conviction prison conditions violate international standards. B. Position of the State 11. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, at the request of the Government, held a meeting on February 20, 1998, during its ninety-eighth period of sessions, with Mr. Ralph Maraj, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and Mr. Ramesh L. Maharaj, the Attorney General of that State. In his statement, the Attorney General argued that the "Commission has no power to challenge the implementation of a sentence of death imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction in Trinidad and Tobago." The argument of the State is as follows: Under the Convention, the Commission has the power to make recommendations to the State Party, but in so far as those recommendations relate to a sentence imposed by the courts of the State Party it would be acting ultra vires if it attempted to alter by its recommendations the domestic law of the State in respect of sentencing. The Commission therefore has no power to challenge the implementation of a sentence of death imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction in Trinidad and Tobago. The Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago mandates all arms of the State, including the judicial arm, to uphold the law of Trinidad and Tobago. The State of Trinidad and Tobago therefore has a mandatory obligation to ensure that its Constitution and laws are not undermined, subverted or frustrated in their operation. It was for this reason that the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, by its reservation entered when accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Inter- American Court of Human Rights, stated that the Court can only have jurisdiction to the extent that it is consistent with the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago. The Commission therefore does not have jurisdiction either by its acts or omissions to prevent in any way a sentence, authorized by the Constitution and laws of Trinidad and Tobago and pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction, from being carried into effect. It is therefore open for the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, whilst a petition is pending before the Commission, to carry out the sentence of death once the time stipulated in accordance with the Constitution and laws of Trinidad and Tobago has expired. The Commission may recommend the award of compensation to a victim. It may recommend that the State 2