27 the United Nations’ Principles of Medical Ethics Relevant to the Role of Health Personnel in the Protection of Prisoners and Detainees against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.33 81. As noted above, the Court does not assess individual responsibilites; its function is rather to protect the victims, determine when their rights have been violated and order reparation for the damage caused by the State responsible for such acts.34 82. The Commission also argued that the evidence presented confirms that the suffering experienced by Mr. Caesar was also exacerbated by his own vulnerable medical condition, specifically owing to his surgery for hemorrhoids only weeks before the flogging. The alleged victim himself affirmed this situation in his affidavit. However, the representatives stated during the public hearing that the date alleged as the day of the surgery may have been incorrect. 83. It was proven that the alleged victim developed hemorrhoids during his detention and, as a result, underwent surgery in January 1997 (supra para. 49(19)). Since there is no showing that the abovementioned surgery occurred a few weeks before the flogging, there are no grounds for finding aggravating circumstances in this context. 84. It is established that, after the flogging, the only medical treatment provided by the State consisted of painkillers, notwithstanding the fact that he had been injured and that his medical condition was already precarious. This conclusion is supported by Robert Ferris’ statement that he found no medical records of any kind relating to the corporal punishment, its effects on Mr. Caesar or any treatment provided (supra para. 49(29)). 85. The Commission further argued that, since the punishment was carried out 23 months after the alleged victim’s sentencing, it was in flagrant violation of the State’s own domestic law, as well as contrary to Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention. 86. The Court notes that Section 6 of the Corporal Punishment Act of Trinidad and Tobago requires a sentence of corporal punishment to be carried out within six months from the date of sentencing. As shown above, the 1994 amendment to the Corporal Punishment Act provided that any period of appeal would not count in reckoning the statutory limit of six months (supra para. 49(9)). This amendment, however, was not applicable to Mr. Caesar’s situation, since he was sentenced prior to its entry into force. In any event, the flogging was performed some five years and seven months outside the statutory limit, so that it can be reasonably assumed that the delay both augmented and extended his mental anguish.35 33 United Nations’ Principles of Medical Ethics relevant to the Role of Health Personnel, particularly Physicians, in the Protection of Prisoners and Detainees against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, G.A. Res. 37/194, annex, 37 U.N. GAOR Sup. (No. 51) at 211, U.N. Doc. A/37/51 (1982). 34 Cf. Castillo-Petruzzi et al. Case. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 90; The "Panel Blanca" Case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 71; and Suárez-Rosero Case. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 37. 35 In Tyrer v. United Kingdom (supra note 21), the European Court pointed out that “admittedly, the relevant legislation provides that in any event birching shall not take place later than six months after the