and Takoor Ramcharan were “commuted to life imprisonment in a judgment […] by the High Court of Justice of […] Trinidad and Tobago dated August 15, 2008.” Additionally, regarding the situation of Mr. Balkissoon Roodal, the Commission stated that on November 20, 2003, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council quashed the death penalty imposed on Mr. Roodal and remitted the matter to the aforementioned High Court of Justice so that it could decide, as a matter of discretion, the sentence to be imposed. The Commission submitted both decisions to the Court.8 C. Considerations of the Court 9. The Court recalls that it ordered that the State adopt provisional measures in favor of Andrew Dottin and Kevin Dial on May 27, 1999, and in favor of Arnold Ramlogan, Balkissoon Roodal, Beemal Ramnarace, Sheldon Roach, and Takoor Ramcharan on November 26, 2001, in order to prevent the execution of the death penalties imposed on them and in this way, preserve their lives and physical integrity.9 In that regard, the Court observes that since 1993, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (hereinafter, “the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,” “the Privy Council,” or “the JCPC”), which functions as the court of appeals of last resort for Trinidad and Tobago,10 and the High Court of Justice, one of the two courts that make up the Supreme Court of Judicature of Trinidad and Tobago,11 have issued a series of decisions that agree with the decisions of the InterAmerican Court, in the sense that the death penalty should not be applied to the aforementioned persons. The Inter-American Court considers it pertinent to now refer to the decisions of the Privy Council and the High Court of Justice. 10. First, the Court observes that in the decision issued on November 2, 1993, in the case Pratt and Morgan v. The Attorney General for Jamaica and Another, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council established that “in any case [in which the death sentence is imposed and] in which execution is to take place more than five years after sentence there will be strong grounds for believing that the delay is such as to constitute ‘inhuman or degrading punishment or other treatment.’”12 Similarly, in its 2006 judgment in the case of Henfield v. Attorney General of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas, the JCPC explained that “the reason why execution [of a person] following the lapse of a prolonged period of time after sentence of death would constitute inhuman punishment is that the condemned man has suffered the agony of mind of facing the                                                              8 Cf. Decision issued by Justice Bereaux on August 15, 2008, in H.C.A. No. 1412 of 2005 (file on provisional measures, volume IV, folios 841-843 and 854-856), and Balkissoon Roodal v. The State (Trinidad and Tobago), Privy Council Appeal No. 18 of 2003, judgment issued by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on November 20, 2003 (file on provisional measures, volume IV, folios 857-907). Available at: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2003/78.html. 9 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 27, 1999, Operative para. 1, and Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 26, 2001, Operative para. 2. 10 Cf. “Role of the JCPC,” Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Available at: http://www.jcpc.gov.uk/about/roleof-the-jcpc.html. 11 The Supreme Court of Judicature of Trinidad and Tobago is composed of the Court of Appeal and the High Court. The Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago provides in Article 99 that: “There shall be a Supreme Court of Judicature for Trinidad and Tobago consisting of a High Court of Justice (hereinafter referred to as ‘the High Court’) and a Court of Appeal with such jurisdiction and powers as conferred on these Courts respectively by this Constitution or any other law.” Cf. “Overview,” Judiciary of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. Available at: http://www.ttlawcourts.org/index.php/supreme-court-27/overview. 12 Cf. Pratt and Morgan v. The Attorney General for Jamaica and another (Jamaica), Privy Council Appeal No. 10 of 1993, judgment issued by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on November 2, 1993, para. 85. Available at: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1993/1.html. 4