10 34) The Inter-American Commission contended that the State should be estopped from raising issues of admissibility in the instant case because, during the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission, Trinidad and Tobago “waived its right to challenge the admissibility of the petition based upon the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule and submitted its observations on the merits of the case”. It alleged that the circumstances in which the Commission determined a violation of Article 4(1) conformed to the Convention and the Commission’s Statute and Rules of Procedure. 35) When the petitioners presented their complaint before the Commission, they did not state a specific violation of Article 4(1). However, in the “second supplementary petition” of September 28, 1998, the petitioners alleged a violation of Article 4(2) of the Convention with respect to Mr. Hilaire. It was the Commission, through its Article 50 Report, that determined that the State had violated Article 4(1) of the Convention, based on the petitioner’s original complaint, and for this reason the violation should be considered by the Court. 36) The Commission considered that the six-month period stipulated in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention is not applicable to the breach of Article 4(1) because the domestic legislation of the State does not provide due process for the protection of rights that have been violated. This is the case because Article 46(2)(a) of the Convention establishes that the provisions of paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) of the above mentioned article shall not be applicable when “the domestic legislation of the State concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated.” 37) In the instant case, the Commission determined a violation of Article 4(1) of the Convention based on the fact that Mr. Hilaire was sentenced to a “mandatory death penalty”. Article 6 of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago 4 hinders individuals from challenging laws that were part of the domestic legislation of Trinidad and Tobago before the Constitution entered into force. The “mandatory death penalty” for the crime of murder was part of the law of Trinidad and Tobago before the Constitution went into effect and for this reason is not open to challenge before the courts. 4 Article 6 of the Constitution of Trinidad y Tobago indicates: Exceptions for Existing Law (1) Nothing in sections 4 and 5 shall invalidate(a) an existing law; (b) an enactment that repeals and re-enacts an existing law without alteration; or (c) an enactment that alters an existing law but does not derogate from any fundamental right guaranteed by this Chapter in a manner in which or to an extent to which the existing law did not previously derogate from that right. (2) Where an enactment repeals and re-enacts with modifications an existing law and is held to derogate from any fundamental right guaranteed by this Chapter in a manner in which or to an extent to which the existing law did not previously derogate from that right then, subject to sections 13 and 54, the provisions of the existing law shall be substituted for such of the provisions of the enactment as are held to derogate from the fundamental right in a manner in which or to an extent to which the existing law did not previously derogate from that right. (3) In this section"alters" in relation to an existing law, includes repealing that law and re-enacting it with modifications or making different provisions in place of it or modifying it; "existing law" means a law that had effect as part of the law of Trinidad and Tobago immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, and includes any enactment referred to in subsection (1); "right" includes freedom.