11 Oral arguments of the State 38) In the public hearing held before the Court, Trinidad and Tobago refuted the arguments presented by the Commission in its written memorial. The State indicated that the doctrines of waiver and estoppel do not apply in the instant case because the “second complementary petition” was submitted outside the six-month time limit. It also alleged that although the Commission had determined the admissibility of the complaint based on the first petition, it had determined that there was a violation of Article 4(1) based on the “second supplementary petition.” Finally, it stated that in Trinidad and Tobago there exists due process under the law and that the State’s Constitution provides for the right to not be arbitrarily deprived of life. Oral arguments of the Commission 39) At the said hearing, the Commission stated that the six-month rule with respect to exhaustion of domestic remedies established in Article 46(1)(b) could be waived expressly or implicitly. In the instant case, the State did not object to the admissibility of the petition and, by its conduct it should be considered to have irrevocably waived its right to do so and hence should be estopped from disputing the admissibility before the Court. In the same manner, the Commission indicated that, in accordance with the Convention, the petitioner needed only to present the facts or the situation which constituted a possible violation of his rights; he was not obligated to name the specific articles which were considered violated. Finally, the Commission argued that the domestic law of Trinidad and Tobago does not provide due process of law for the protection of rights alleged to have been violated and that the “mandatory death penalty” for the crime of murder could not be challenged before the courts under the Constitution of the State. Considerations of the Court 40) Article 46(1) of the American Convention establishes the necessary requirements for a petition to be admitted by the Inter-American Commission. Article 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedures, in effect at the time when the complaint was initially lodged, lists the elements that the petition must contain at the time of its presentation. Neither Article 46(1) nor Article 32 establishes that the petitioners must specify the articles they consider to have been violated. Moreover, Article 32(c) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure 5 allows for the possibility that “no specific reference [be] made to the article(s) alleged to have been violated” and, paragraph (b) of the said Article 46 refers to a deadline for the lodging of the complaint. 41) In their original application the petitioners set out the facts on which they based their claims of violations of the Convention. They were under no legal obligation to specify which precise provisions of the Convention were violated in order to justify their complaint. In subsequent submissions they made reference to the same facts, adding certain legal considerations. In sum, the original petition 5 In conformity with Article 32(c) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, petitions presented before the Commission must include: “an indication of the state in question which the petitioner considers responsible, by commission or omission, for the violation of a human right recognized in the American Convention on Human Rights in the cases of the States Parties thereto, even if no specific reference is made to the article alleged to have been violated”.