12 49(1). On November 11, 1983, Mr. Winston Caesar was initially arrested as the suspect in connection with a rape that was alleged to have taken place in Trinidad on November 8, 1983. On November 16, 1983, he was released on bail. Between 1985 and 1986 committal proceedings took place in the Port of Spain Magistrate's 4th Court, which ordered him to stand trial on February 21, 1986. 49(2). On September 10, 1991, he was arrested and taken into custody for failing to appear in court. During his trial he was held at Port of Spain prison. 49(3). The trial was held in January 1992, before Mr. Justice Dayalsingh, in the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago. On January 10, 1992, Mr. Caesar was convicted of attempted rape under Trinidad and Tobago’s Offences Against the Person Act. He was sentenced to serve 20 years in a penitentiary with hard labor and to receive 15 strokes of the cat-o-nine tails. That same day Mr. Caesar signed a Notice of Appeal and remained in detention. 49(4). On November 26, 1993 Mr. Caesar's attorney filed an application for leave to appeal at the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago, challenging the legal basis for the ruling. On February 28, 1996, the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago dismissed Mr. Caesar’s application for leave to appeal apparently without giving reasons, and confirmed the conviction and sentence. 49(5). A counsel in Britain was asked by Mr. Caesar’s lawyers to consider whether there were reasonable grounds of appeal to the Privy Council in this case. On November 2, 1998, in his “note for instructing solicitors”, counsel indicated that an application for Special Leave to Appeal to the Privy Council was unlikely to succeed. In considering whether the delay of over 8 years between Mr. Caesar’s arrest and trial was so great as to amount to a denial of justice, and thus an infringement of his constitutional rights, counsel was of the opinion that although the delay was “very great” and might be imputed to the State, he nevertheless judged as minimal the degree of risk that the miscarriage of justice had been caused by the delay. Finally, the counsel considered that, although such delay was a point on which Mr. Caesar might have applied to the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago, he discounted the chances of success at the Privy Council. Regarding the relevant law in Trinidad and Tobago 49(6). There are two principal laws that authorize the use of corporal punishment in Trinidad and Tobago. One of them is the Corporal Punishment Act (Offenders Over Eighteen). The terms of this legislation provide for the application of corporal punishment for certain crimes by, inter alia, the following methods: whipping with a rod of tamarind or similar switch and flogging with strokes of an object called a “cat-o-nine tails”. 49(7). that: Articles 2, 6 and 7 of the Corporal Punishment Act stipulate