-6revoked, and the mandatory application of the death penalty was restored 32. Nonetheless, according to the same judgment of the case of Charles Matthew, the mandatory death penalty could not be applied to those persons who up to that date were benefiting of the decision in the case of Balkissoon Roodal 33. Based on this, the Commission considered that this judgment applies to all the victims of the case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al., with the exception of Joey Ramiah, and required Trinidad and Tobago to commute all the death penalties imposed to them and impose them life imprisonment. However, the Commission subsequently reported cases of different persons, none of whom are victims of the case under study, that should also be protected by the said exception to the precedent of the case of Charles Matthew, and whose executions would have been ordered. The Commission also reported about an alleged state policy directed to the observance of the death penalty orders, founded on the assertion made by the Attorney General in 2005, who would have stated that no legal obstacle would discourage the State to carry out its constitutional mandate in relation to other convicted persons, in accordance with the rule of law 34. Likewise, the representative of the victims asserted, on its brief of 2014, that the mandatory death penalty continues to be applied in Trinidad and Tobago. The State, with its silence, did not contradict the statements of the Commission and the representative, despite the specific information requests that through notes of the Secretariat were made regarding the extension of the precedent established in the case of Charles Matthew (supra having seen paragraph 3). 10. A similar reasoning applies to the case of Caesar. The Court observes that the Commission stated that there are no elements that allow the verification of the compliance with the reparation to “adopt [...] such legislative or other necessary measures to repeal the Corporal Punishment Act”. On the contrary, it described an example of October of 2005, in which a tribunal of Trinidad and Tobago went back to applying a corporal punishment. This was not contradicted by the State, despite the notes from the Secretariat that required the presentation of information regarding compliance with the Judgment (supra having seen paragraph 7). 11. The Court considers that said non-compliance with the duty to advise and to implement the reparations ordered (supra considering paragraphs 5 to 10) constitutes an open disregard of the duties derived from the Judgments handed down by the Court 32 In this regard, the Privy Council based its decision arguing that although the Trinitarian Constitution recognizes the rights to life and the prohibition of cruel and inhuman treatment, section 6 (1) thereof provides that such rules may not invalidate a pre-existing rule, so, considering that the Offences Against the Person Act precedes the Trinitarian Constitution, its provisions can only be annulled by the Parliament. Cf. Privy Council Appeal No. 12 of 2004, Charles Matthew Vs. The State, July 7, 2004 (Annex to the brief presented by the Commission on July 12, 2004, p. 107 and 108). In this matter, the Court finds necessary to reaffirm the provisions of the Judgment in the case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al., as well as in the case of Caesar, referring to Section 6 of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago, when it determined that the State "may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to comply with its international obligations", so that ''the exclusion clause contained in Section 6 of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago is incompatible with the Convention”, which ordered the State to amend this constitutional section (supra considering paragraph 6). The Court also takes note that in the vote of the minority of the Privy Council, it was acknowledged that “the effect of reversing Roodal is to put the State in breach of its international obligations”. Cf. Privy Council Appeal No. 12 of 2004, Charles Matthew Vs. The State, July 7, 2004 (Annex to the brief presented by the Commission on July 12, 2004, p. 135). 33 In this regard, the Privy Council determined that, given that a group of people expected to be subjected under the criterion of the Roodal case, it would be a cruel punishment to remove the law which they previously had. However, that criterion would not apply to those convicted after the judgment of the case Matthew. Cf. Privy Council Appeal No. 12 of 2004, Charles Matthew Vs. The State, July 7, 2004 (Annex to the brief presented by the Commission on July 12, 2004, p.109, 115 y 116). 34 Cf. Daily Press Release of The Trinidad Guardian, State forced to hold hand on hanging, June 14, 2005 (Annex to the brief presented by the Commission on August 15, 2005, p. 157).