14. Subsequently, the beneficiaries Andrew Dottin and Kevin Dial participated in an action brought by various people who were on death row at the time the judgment in the Matthew case was issued. Through its judgment of January 5, 2010, the High Court of Justice confirmed that their sentences should be commuted to life imprisonment and indicated that after the issuance of the judgments of Pratt and Morgan and Matthew (supra Considering paragraphs 10 and 12), “it was clear”: (i) that persons on death row after 5 years had elapsed could in most cases not have been executed, (ii) that that period may have been abbreviated to 3 1/2 years if appeals to international human rights tribunals were not available, (iii) that persons […] on death row as at July 7th[,] 2004[, the date that the judgment in the Matthew case was issued,] awaiting execution could not have been executed, (iv) […] [and], (v) that after the order of […] Justice Bereaux persons who have had their sentences of death commuted to life imprisonment and who have been removed from death row could not be subject to execution thereafter for the same reasons given in Matthew namely - once an expectation is held out to a prisoner and officially communicated to him that he would not be executed, this cannot be resiled from […].20 15. The Court recalls that it ordered provisional measures in favor of Andrew Dottin, Kevin Dial, Arnold Ramlogan, Balkissoon Roodal, Beemal Ramnarace, Sheldon Roach, and Takoor Ramcharan  “so as not to hinder the processing of [the beneficiaries’] cases before the InterAmerican system for the protection of human rights.”21 In that regard, the Court observes that to date, the Inter-American Commission has not submitted the cases of such persons to the InterAmerican Court. Thus, in view of the judgments issued by the court of appeals of last resort in Trinidad and Tobago and by one of the courts that make up the Supreme Court of that State, according to which the death sentences imposed on Andrew Dottin, Kevin Dial, Arnold Ramlogan, Balkissoon Roodal, Beemal Ramnarace, Sheldon Roach, and Takoor Ramcharan have been commuted, and given the lack of information on the part of the representatives and the State confirming the existence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency and of risk of such persons suffering irreparable harm to their lives or personal integrity, the Court considers it appropriate to lift the provisional measures ordered in the present matter. It is important to note, in this regard, that all the aforementioned persons had reached the periods of 5 and 3.5 years on death row after which, “in most cases,” they could not be executed, according to the interpretation of the High Court of Justice of the judgments issued by the JCPC in the cases of Pratt and Morgan and Henfield (supra Considering paragraphs 10 and 14). 16. It is not within the Court’s knowledge whether the cases of the aforementioned persons are still being processed before the Inter-American Commission. In this regard, the Court reiterates that the denunciation of the Convention by Trinidad and Tobago does not have the effect of releasing the State from its responsibilities regarding acts that occurred prior to the effective date of said denunciation (supra Considering paragraph 2). For this reason, despite the lifting of the provisional measures previously ordered, the State is obligated to guarantee the rights of the aforementioned persons22 in the context of the cases that may be progressing before the Commission. The lifting of the present provisional measures does not prevent, if it becomes necessary, a renewed request for the urgent attention of the organs of the Inter-American System for the protection of human rights.                                                              20 “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 January 5, 2010, H.C.A. No. 1412 of 2005, pages 37 and 38. Available at: http://webopac.ttlawcourts.org/LibraryJud/Judgments/HC/rajkumar/2005/hca_05_1412DD5jan2010.pdf. 21 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 3, 2009, Considering para. 13. 22 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 23, 2012, Considering para. 21, and Matter of Millacura Llaipén et al. Provisional Measures regarding Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 13, 2013, Considering para. 18. 6