pardon, the Court has established that the State has a duty to implement a fair and transparent procedure by which an offender sentenced to death may make use of all favorable evidence deemed relevant. In this regard, in the Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al., the Inter-American Commission concluded that Trinidad and Tobago failed to comply with the requirements of Article 4.6 of the American Convention taking into account that the application of the procedure for granting mercy to the thirty-two victims of the case was characterized by a lack of transparency, lack of available information and lack of participation by the victims, resulting in a violation of Article 4(6), in conjunction with Articles 8 and 1(1) of the American Convention96 78. The Commission notes that in 1993 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the highest court of appeal for some English-speaking Caribbean countries, held in the Pratt and Morgan v. Jamaica case that excessive delays between sentencing and execution of the punishment constitute inhuman or degrading punishment. The Privy Council ruled that, as the Constitution of Jamaica prohibits inhuman or degrading punishment, it was unconstitutional to execute a prisoner who has been on death row more than five years.97 79. On November 20, 2003, in the case of Balkissoon Roodal, the JCPC established that the mandatory sentence of death was inconsistent with the international obligations of Trinidad and Tobago under the American Declaration. 98 The following year, however, the Privy Council reversed its previous position regarding the mandatory death penalty in Trinidad and Tobago in the case of Matthew.99 Nevertheless, the JCPC considered that those persons who had benefitted from its judgment in the case of Balkissoon Roodal had, until that time, the “expectation” that they would have the opportunity for a hearing regarding their sentence and that it was therefore fair that the death penalties imposed on these persons, be commuted to sentences of life imprisonment.100 80. The petitioners submit that, to the extent the State did not apply JCPC decisions in Pratt and Morgan, Roodal, and Matthew to the victims’ case, it violated their rights under Articles II101 and XXVI of the American Declaration. They claim that the Privy Council’s decisions are the law and the State has undertaken that such remedies would be enforced, therefore in failing to commute the sentences the State denied the victims their fundamental rights recognized by the law (ignoring the final judicial determination rendered by a competent court) and deprived of benefits of a lower sentence as mentioned above. 81. According to the facts established in this report, Messrs. Dial and Dottin were sentenced to the death penalty on January 21, 1997. The Commission also notes that Trinidad and Tobago relies on the JCPC as its ultimate court of appeal and that the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago has a provision that prohibits the imposition of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. 82. Given that the decision in Pratt and Morgan was adopted in 1993, the reasoning by the Privy Council became precedence that the State could have followed to determine how to treat the sentences of death row inmates. As evidenced by the successful constitutional motion, which granted the commutation of several death sentences to life imprisonment, the ruling within Pratt and Morgan was sound law. 83. Therefore, according to the binding jurisprudence that existed at the time, Messrs. Dial and Dottin’s death sentence should have been commuted after they had served five years on death row or, at least, after the Roodal’s decision adopted on November 20, 2003. However, on June 6, 2005, the Attorney General made a statement outlining his intention to execute all those on death row. This, despite, a previous communication from the State Party’s London Solicitors dated January 12, 2005, confirming that the Government of Trinidad 96 I/A Court H.R., Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 189. 97 Pratt and Morgan v. The Attorney General for Jamaica and another (Jamaica) [1993] UKPC 1 (November 2, 1993). 98 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. 99 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. 100 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. 101 Article II of the American Declaration provides: All persons are equal before the law and have the rights and duties established in this Declaration, without distinction as to race, sex, language, creed or any other factor.” 17