19. The State submits that the IACHR has no jurisdiction to challenge the sentence imposed by the State in accordance with its domestic law; and references the case of Thomas and Hilaire which sets out the law under which the state party will act in this regard. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council expressed: “Even if the prison conditions in themselves amounted to cruel and unusual treatment, however, and so constituted an independent breach of the appellants' constitutional rights, commutation of the sentence would not be the appropriate remedy. Pratt did not establish the principle that prolonged detention prior to execution constitutes cruel and unusual treatment. It is the carrying out of the death sentence after such detention which constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. This is because of the additional cruelty, over and above that inherent in the death penalty itself, involved in carrying it out after having exposed the condemned man to a long period of alternating hope and despair. It is the circumstances in which it is proposed to carry out the sentence, not the fact that it has been preceded by a long period of imprisonment, which renders it cruel and unusual. The fact that the conditions in which the condemned man has been kept prior to execution infringe his constitutional rights does not make a lawful sentence unconstitutional. […] Their Lordships are unwilling to adopt the approach of the IACHR, which they understand holds that any breach of a condemned man's constitutional rights makes it unlawful to carry out a sentence of death. In their Lordships' view this fails to give sufficient recognition to the public interest in having a lawful sentence of the court carried out. They would also be slow to accept the proposition that a breach of a man's constitutional rights must attract some remedy, and that if the only remedy which is available is commutation of the sentence then it must be adopted even if it is inappropriate and disproportionate. The proposition would have little to commend it even in the absence of section 14(2) of the Constitution, but it is clearly precluded by that section.”12 20. The State refers to the views of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (“the HRC”) adopted on 29 July, 1998 in respect of Dole Chadee et al. 13 that there was no breach of Article 10 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights arising from prison conditions in Trinidad and Tobago. Further reference was made to the case of Thomas and Hilaire 14 ruled on by the Privy Council which accepted the findings of the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago that prison conditions within the State did not amount to cruel and unusual treatment in violation of section 5(2)(b) of the Constitution. The State further denies the allegations of the lack of medical treatment by prison authorities.15 21. Finally, the State concludes that the petitioners are merely seeking to use the Inter-American Commission as a final court of appeal, since no denial of justice can be said to arise in this case. Accordingly, the State submits that the alleged victims are not entitled to compensation, because their convictions were the result of criminal procedures which respected all fair trial guarantees. III. FINDINGS OF FACT 22. In application of Article 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure, the IACHR will examine the arguments and evidence provided by the petitioners. As stated above, there has been no response received by the State at the merits stage. Likewise, the Commission will take into account publicly available information that may be relevant to the analysis and decision of the instant case. A. Relevant legal framework 23. Offences Against the Person Act, Chapter 11:08, as amended by section 2 of the Offences Against the Person (Amendment) Act No. 19 of 1985, Section 4, provides: “Every person convicted of murder shall suffer death.” 24. Section 5 of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago establishes: Thomas and Haniff Hilaire v Cipriani Baptiste (Trinidad and Tobago) [1999] UKPC 13 (17 March, 1990), paragraphs 44 and 46. Dole Chadee et al (represented by Mr. David Smythe, of Kingsley Napley, a law firm in London) v. Trinidad and Tobago, Communication No. 813/1998, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/63/D/813/1998 (29 July 1998). 14 Thomas and Haniff Hilaire v Cipriani Baptiste (Trinidad and Tobago) [1999] UKPC] 13 (17 March 1999). 15 Response by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago dated August 18, 1999. 12 13 4