than a decade under inhuman conditions, for instance: there are no educational or recreational activities; they can only have one hour of exercise, while handcuffed, every 1-3 weeks; very little exposure to natural light and inadequate ventilation in their cells; no sanitation facilities; precarious conditions of hygiene; inedible food and limited access to potable water; among others. 12. Lastly, the petitioners contend that the alleged victims were entitled as from 2003 to have their death sentences commuted on the strength of applicable case law emanating from the JCPC, including the Cases of Roodal,7 Matthews8 and Pratt & Morgan.9 In this regard, the petitioners indicate that the Trinidad and Tobago Court of Appeals recognized that failure to give effect to the Pratt and Morgan decisions “may further aggravate the mental anguish on the part of the condemned man.”10 The petitioners further allege that in August 2005, while the Inter-American Court’s Provisional Measures were in force, the State issued warrants of execution which were read to the alleged victims, following a public announcement by the Attorney General that the State intended to recommence executions of death row inmates. Further, the petitioners claim that while the commutation process was ongoing, the alleged victims were unable to begin the rehabilitation under a life sentence and were not benefiting from sentence reviews at four yearly intervals. While the death sentences were eventually commuted to life imprisonment in August 2008, the petitioners maintain that the imposition of the death sentences, the years spent on death row, and the issuance of warrants of execution that were read to the alleged victims, gave rise to a violation of the rights to life and to personal integrity/humane treatment. B. State 13. Trinidad and Tobago did not send a response to the petitioner’s additional observations on the merits. This section is thus based on arguments made during the admissibility stage that are related to the merits. 14. The State denies all allegations related to the merits, principally because it considers that the petitioners failed to produce substantive evidence of violations of the American Convention. 15. The State asserts that the 12-month period between the completion of the committal proceedings and the trial was not unreasonable, and further does not amount to a breach of Article 7(5) of the American Convention. It also submits that the pre-trial delay should not be allowed to be raised as an issue and relies on the case of Fisher v Minister of Public Safety (No. 1) [1998] A.C. 673 from the Privy Council which held that, as a general rule, it was not appropriate for the purposes of considering whether execution had been rendered inhuman by reason of delay in execution of the sentence to bring into account pre-trial delay. 16. The State claims that no denial of justice, restrictions to legal aid or miscarriage of justice can be said to arise in this case, since all due process guarantees of the alleged victims were respected. The State expresses that the applicants were represented by counsel at their trial and subsequent appeal. The alleged victims had prior notification of the charges against them, were offered legal counsel by the State, legal aid was available, and no restrictions were placed onto their right to communicate freely and privately with counsel. 17. As regards a claim to a breach of personal liberty the State denied any breach and state that the applicants failed to produce substantive evidence to support the allegations. 18. More specifically, the State contends that the existence of the mandatory sentence of death for murder is in accordance with international law and the Convention. It is explained that the trial judge directs the jury to bring a verdict of murder or manslaughter to reflect the circumstances in which the death of the victim ensured. The State reiterated that it was after considering the evidence that the jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty of murder and that the death sentence is only imposed following a conviction of murder. The State explains that the sentence of death will always be reviewed before the Advisory Committee on the Power of Pardon.11 Balkissoon Roodal v State of Trinidad & Tobago, [2003] PC 18. Charles Matthews v State of Trinidad &Tobago [2004] PC 2. 9 Pratt & Morgan v R. (put: The Attorney General of Jamaica) (on appeal from Jamaica), [1994] 2 AC 1. 10 The petitioners refer to The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Angela Ramdeen [Cv.A No.6 of 2004], para. 39. 11 Response by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago dated August 18, 1999. 7 8 3