50. Among the circumstances mentioned by the Commission that are to be presented and considered in the sentencing process are: the prior criminal record of the offender, the subjective factors that could have motivated the conduct, the degree of participation in the criminal act, and the probability that the offender could be rehabilitated. Trinidadian law, however, does not consider any of these factors when sentencing persons convicted for murder. The Commission added that the use of the mandatory death penalty by Trinidad and Tobago and the resulting imposition of the death penalty on all persons convicted of murder without taking into account the particular circumstances or the varying degrees of culpability, also contravened the inherent dignity of the human being and the right to humane treatment protected in Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention.53 51. In the case of Edwards et al., the Inter-American Commission noted, with regard to The Bahamas, that the mandatory sentencing by its very nature precludes consideration by a court of whether the death penalty is an appropriate, or indeed permissible, form of punishment in the circumstances of a particular offender or offense. Moreover, the Commission noted that, by reason of its compulsory and automatic application, a mandatory sentence cannot be the subject of an effective review by a higher court. Once a mandatory sentence is imposed, all that remains for a higher court to review is whether the defendant was found guilty of a crime for which the sentence was mandated.54 52. The Commission reaffirms that imposing a mandatory penalty of death for all crimes of murder contravenes the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of the right to life recognized in Article 4(1) of the Convention, as it fails to individualize the sentence in conformity with the characteristics of the crime, as well as the participation and degree of culpability of the accused, according to Article 4(2) of the same instrument. By its nature, then, this process eliminates any reasoned basis for sentencing a particular individual to death and fails to allow for a rational and proportionate connection between individual offenders, their offenses, and the punishment imposed on them.55 53. In the instant case, the mandatory death penalty set forth in the Offences Against the Person Act was applied to Messrs. Dial and Dottin in February 1997, while the American Convention was in force. The Commission further notes that Trinidad and Tobago still retains the mandatory death penalty, being currently the only country in the Caribbean and in the Organization of American States to retain this penalty, following the Caribbean Court of Justice ruling of June 27, 2018, which found Barbados’ mandatory death penalty unconstitutional.56 54. The Commission further notes that Trinidad and Tobago still retains the mandatory death penalty. In its report The death penalty in the Inter-American Human Rights Human System: From restrictions to abolition, the IACHR has highlighted the role of the Inter-American Commission and Court in the abolition of the mandatory death penalty in the region in the following terms: 57 The Commission’s decision in the Hilaire case was the first by an international human rights body to evaluate the human rights implications of the mandatory death penalty. 58 The Commission, and later the Court, drew on standards that had been developed by certain national courts in interpreting international standards. The work of the Commission and Court in turn had an important influence on the development of further standards at the national level, and then by other international instances. At the national level, the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal was the first, in 2001, to make explicit reference to the Inter‐American Commission’s jurisprudence (McKenzie v. Jamaica and Baptiste v. Grenada) in concluding that the mandatory death penalty in St. Lucia and St. Vincent violated the prohibition of inhuman treatment. In conjunction with these developments, the Judicial 53 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. 77. 54 IACHR, Report No. 12.231, Case 12.231. Merits (Publication). Peter Cash. Commonwealth of the Bahamas. April 2, 2014, para. 74. 55 IACHR, Report No. 12.231, Case 12.231. Merits (Publication). Peter Cash. Commonwealth of the Bahamas. April 2, 2014, para 72. 56 The Caribbean Court of Justice: CCJ Strikes down mandatory death penalty in Barbados. June 27, 2018. Available at: https://www.ccj.org/ccj-strikes-down-mandatory-death-penalty-in-barbados/ 57 IACHR, The death penalty in the Inter-American Human Rights System: From restrictions to abolition, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc 68, December 31, 2011, paras. 26 and 27. 58 Brian Tittemore, “The Mandatory Death Penalty in the Commonwealth Caribbean and the Inter‐ American Human Rights System: An Evolution in the Development and Implementation of International Human Rights Protections,” 13 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 445 (2004), p. 22. 11