53 assistance of an attorney, and that in practice, there is no effective means to present constitutional motions in Trinidad and Tobago. 132 150) With regard to this same issue, this Court has reiterated that it is not enough that legal recourse exist in theory, 133 if such recourses do not prove effective in preventing violations of the rights protected in the Convention. The guarantee of an effective recourse "constitutes one of the basic pillars, not only of the American Convention, but also the Rule of Law in a democratic society as per the Convention." 134 151) This Tribunal has also indicated that within the general obligations of States, there exists a positive duty to guarantee the rights of all individuals within their jurisdiction. This includes the duty to take all necessary measures to remove any impediments which might exist that would prevent individuals from enjoying the rights the Convention guarantees. Any state which tolerates circumstances or conditions that prevent individuals from having recourse to the legal remedies designed to protect their rights is consequently in violation of Article 1(1) of the Convention. 135 152) Based on the foregoing, the Court makes the following findings: a) Trinidad and Tobago’s domestic law does not recognise the right to trial within a reasonable period of time, and therefore, does not conform to the dictates of the 132 Cf. Expert Witness Report of Desmond Allum, supra para. 77(a); Cf. also: United Nations Human Rights Committee, Currie v. Jamaica, Communication No. 377/1989, U.N. Doc. No. CCPR/C/50/D/377/1989 (1994), para. 13(4) (concluding that in cases where a convicted person wishes to present a constitutional motion due to irregularities in his criminal trial and lacks the means to pay for legal counsel, if the interests of justice so require, Article 14(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights demands that the State provide free legal representation); United Nations Human Rights Committee, Willard Collins v. Jamaica, Communication No. 240/1987, U.N. Doc. No. CCPR/C/43/D/240/1987 (1991), para. 7(6) (holding that in cases of capital punishment, legal aid should not merely be available, but that the defence counsel should be able to prepare his client’s case under circumstances that will guarantee justice); European Court of Human Rights, Benham v. United Kingdom. Judgment of May 24, 1996, Case No. 7/1995/513/597, para. 64 (the European Court concluded that in view of the gravity of the punishment that the petitioner could be given and the complexity of the applicable laws, the interests of justice demanded that the petitioner be provided free legal representation in order to guarantee a fair trial); and European Court of Human Rights, Artico Case. Judgment of May 13, 1980, Petition No. 00006694/74, para. 35 (establishing that it is not necessary to prove actual prejudice to establish a violation of the right protected in Article 6(3)(c) of the European Convention, but rather that it is sufficient to simply show that the victim was denied legal aid). 133 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Cesti Hurtado Case. Judgment of September 29, 1999. Series C No. 56, para. 125; I/A Court H.R., The "Panel Blanca Case" (Paniagua Morales et al.). Judgment of March 8, 1998, supra note 66, para. 164; I/A Court H.R., Suárez Rosero Case. Judgment of November 12, 1997, supra note 66, para. 63. In addition, this Tribunal also stated that "[a] remedy which proves illusory because of the general conditions prevailing in the country, or even in the particular circumstances of a given case, cannot be considered effective." I/A Court H.R., Judicial Guaranties in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987, supra note 130, para. 24. 134 I/A Court H.R., Cantoral Benavides Case. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 163. Cf. I/A Court H.R., Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 109, para. 101; and I/A Court H.R., The "Street Children" Case (Villagrán Morales et. al), supra note 67, para. 234. 135 I/A Court H.R., Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Arts. 46(1), 46(2)(a), and 46(2)(b) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990. Series A No. 11, para. 34.