49 128) With respect to the availability of legal assistance, the Commission specifically alleged that Narine Sooklal (Case No. 12,152) was denied permission on six occasions to make telephone calls to obtain legal representation. For this reason, he did not benefit from legal counsel until immediately before the preliminary inquiry, which took place six months after his arrest. Consequently, the Commission argued that in his specific case, Article 8(2)(d) of the American Convention was violated. 129) Likewise, the Commission specifically alleged in the case of Keiron Thomas (Case No. 11,853), that during the appeal requested by the victim, the lawyer appointed by the State to represent him informed the Court of Appeal that, in his opinion, the appeal was unfounded and would not succeed. As a result, the victim dismissed his lawyer and requested that he have the opportunity to obtain another lawyer or defend himself personally. The Court of Appeal refused his petition and ordered that Keiron Thomas continue to be represented by the lawyer that he had objected to. In light of these facts, the Commission claimed that the State is responsible for violating Article 8(2)(d) and 8(2)(e) of the Convention. 130) The Commission argued that the victim in Case No. 12,052, Martin Reid, was found guilty of murder solely on the basis of the positive identification made by of one witness for the prosecution. However, after his conviction, the State provided the victim’s lawyers with a copy of a statement made by the witness prior to the aforementioned testimony, containing information that contradicted the trial testimony that led to Martin Reid’s conviction. The Commission therefore claimed that, with respect to this victim, Trinidad and Tobago violated Article 8(2)(c) of the Convention. 131) Similarly, in the case of Peter Benjamin (Case No. 12,148), the Commission claimed that the weapon allegedly used by Benjamin to commit the murder was 16gague while the weapon that killed the murder victim was 12-gague. Thus, Benjamin could not have committed this murder. The Commission added that although this information was available at trial, its due significance and scope was not brought to light. In the opinion of the Commission, this constitutes a violation of Article 8(1) of the American Convention. Contentions of the Representatives of the Alleged Victims 132) In regard to the violation of Articles 7(5) and 8(1) of the Convention, the representatives of the victims concurred with the contentions of the Inter-American Commission and asked the Court to commute the death sentences by virtue of the delay in the proceedings (supra para. 120). Below, the Court presents a summary of their allegations. 133) The representatives stated that international jurisprudence establishes that a conviction issued pursuant to a trial where there were unjustified delays may be quashed. The Court, therefore, should order the State to commute the sentences imposed. 134) The representatives also claimed that there was a violation of Article 2 of the Convention because the State had not adopted the necessary measures to give full effect to the rights protected therein. They added that Trinidad and Tobago has not revised its criminal statutes to allow the exercise of discretion in sentencing, has not amended its Constitution to guarantee the right to a fair trial within a reasonable