that the alleged victims have been detained for more than a decade under inhuman conditions, for instance: there are no educational or recreational activities; they can only have one hour of exercise, while handcuffed, every 1-3 weeks; very little exposure to natural light and inadequate ventilation in their cells; no sanitation facilities; precarious conditions of hygiene; inedible food and limited access to potable water; among others. 23. The petitioners further submit that the State has failed to compensate the alleged victims for their conviction through a miscarriage of justice. They also hold that the State is responsible for a violation of the alleged victims’ right to honor and dignity by the actions of the police and prison authorities. Finally, they argue that the State has failed to provide the alleged victims with equal and effective access to constitutional motions before the courts in Trinidad & Tobago for the protection of their rights. In particular, they maintain that the conditions for such recourse are discriminatory because the proceedings are extremely expensive and no legal aid is available for these motions. 24. Specifically with respect to Mr. Dial, the petitioners allege that because he is the father of a minor child (he was expecting the child’s birth at the moment of his arrest), the State committed further violations to his detriment. The petitioners argue that, because of its arbitrary refusal to ever allow Mr. Dial to see his child after his arrest, the State destroyed Mr. Dial’s family life and effectively failed to protect the rights of his family and the rights of his minor child. B. Position of the State 25. The State requested that the IACHR declare the petition inadmissible under the nonexhaustion of domestic remedies rule, given that the alleged victims had not filed a constitutional motion before the domestic courts in Trinidad & Tobago. Moreover, the State broadly denies all the violations alleged by the petitioners. 26. In particular, the State argues that the existence of a mandatory death penalty for all convictions of murder is in accordance with international law and the American Convention. According to the State, the trial judge, through his instructions to the jury, is able to ensure a sentence which reflects the individual circumstances of each case. 27. With respect to the right to humane treatment, the State contends that the HRC found no breach of Article 10 (right to humane treatment) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights arising from prison conditions in Trinidad & Tobago. 13 Furthermore, the State points out the case of Thomas and Hilaire, in which the JCPC upheld the finding of the Court of Appeal of Trinidad & Tobago that the prison conditions did not amount to cruel and unusual treatment in violation of the State Constitution. In response to the contention that the conditions of detention may render unlawful the carrying out of a death sentence, the State submits that the IACHR has no competence to challenge the sentence imposed by the State in accordance with its domestic law. 28. The State argues that the 12-month period that elapsed between the completion of the committal proceedings and the trial was not unreasonable; however, it offers no explanation of the difference between that period and the two-year delay alleged by the petitioners. In addition, the State submits that the petitioners are merely seeking to use the IACHR as a final court of appeal, since the matters complained of in the petition are substantially the same as those included in their grounds of appeal, which went to both the Court of Appeal and the JCPC, and were subsequently dismissed. The State claims that no denial of justice, restrictions to legal aid or miscarriage of justice can be said to arise in this case, since all due process guarantees of the alleged victims were respected. 29. Finally, with regard to the allegations regarding the right to honor and dignity, the rights of the family and the rights of the child, Trinidad & Tobago denies them on the basis that the petitioners failed to present any substantial evidence in support of those contentions. 13 The State cites HRC, Dole Chadee et. al, Views adopted on 29 July 1998. 5