prospect of execution over that period.”13 According to the JCPC, the context of a particular country’s legal system and the periods anticipated within such country for the conclusion of appeals processes should be taken into account when establishing if a particular delay, in its entirety from the time of the imposition of the sentence, constitutes an “inhuman punishment.”14 Unlike in the Jamaican system, in the Bahamas, there is no possibility of application to the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations, and thus the anticipated period for the conclusion of the appeals process was only two years. Consequently, the Privy Council held that in that case, a total period of delay of three and a half years was “inordinate.” 11. Subsequently, in the judgment issued on November 20, 2003, in the case of Balkissoon Roodal v. The State (supra Considering paragraph 8), the Privy Council established that the “mandatory sentence of death is inconsistent with the international obligations of Trinidad and Tobago under the [American] Declaration [of the Rights and Duties of Man].” Therefore, the Privy Council quashed the death penalty imposed on Mr. Balkissoon Roodal, beneficiary of the present provisional measures, and remitted the matter to the trial judge to decide, as a matter of discretion, the sentence to be imposed.15 It should be noted that the JCPC left open the possibility that Mr. Roodal could be sentenced to death once again. 12. However, the following year, the Privy Council reversed its previous position regarding the mandatory death penalty in Trinidad and Tobago in the case of Matthew v. The State.16 Nevertheless, the JCPC considered that those persons who had benefitted from its judgment in the case of Balkissoon Roodal v. The State (supra Considering paragraphs 8 and 11) had, until that time, the “expectation” that they would have the opportunity for a hearing regarding the imposition of a discretionary sentence. Therefore, the JCPC considered it fair that the death penalties imposed on these persons, including Mr. Roodal, be commuted to sentences of life imprisonment.17 13. Moreover, the Court observes that as a result of some statements by the Attorney General of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago before Parliament in 2005, to the effect that the State would do “everything within its power” to carry out the sentences of the persons on death row,18 on August 15, 2008, Justice Bereaux, of the High Court of Justice, commuted the sentences of death of Andrew Dottin, Kevin Dial, Takoor Ramcharan, Arnold Ramlogan, Beemal Ramnarace, and Sheldon Roach, all of whom are beneficiaries of the present provisional measures, among other persons.19                                                              13 Cf. Henfield v. Attorney General of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas (Bahamas), Privy Council Appeal Nos. 26 y 37 of 1996, judgment issued by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on October 14, 1996, para. 9. Available at: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1996/36.html. 14 Cf. Henfield v. Attorney General of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas (Bahamas), Privy Council Appeal Nos. 26 y 37 of 1996, judgment issued by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on October 14, 1996, paras. 10 and 11. Available at: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1996/36.html. 15 Cf. 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, paras. 30-32 and 35 (file on provisional measures, volume IV, folios 857-907). Available at: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2003/78.html. 16 Cf. Matthew v. The State (Trinidad and Tobago), Privy Council Appeal No. 12 of 2004, judgment issued by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on July 7, 2004, para. 1. Available at: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2004/33.html. 17 Cf. Matthew v. The State (Trinidad and Tobago), Privy Council Appeal No. 12 of 2004, judgment issued by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on July 7, 2004, paras. 30-33. Available at: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2004/33.html. 18 Cf. “In the matter of Section 4 and 5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago Act No. 4 of 1976,” decision of the High Court of Justice of August 5, 2010, H.C.A. No. 1412 of 2005, pages 4 and 5. Available at: http://webopac.ttlawcourts.org/LibraryJud/Judgments/HC/rajkumar/2005/hca_05_1412DD5jan2010.pdf. 19 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 842 and 855). 5