25 constitutes a form of torture and, therefore, is a violation per se of the right of any person submitted to such punishment to have his physical, mental and moral integrity respected, as provided in Article 5(1) and 5(2), in connection with Article 1(1) of the Convention. Accordingly, Trinidad and Tobago’s Corporal Punishment Act must be considered in contravention to Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention (infra para. 94). 74. While the Inter-American Court is neither authorized nor required by the Convention to pronounce on the compatibility of the actions of individuals with the Convention, it is nevertheless obvious that the conduct and decisions of civil servants and state agents must be framed within those international obligations. In the instant case, where the Corporal Punishment Act of Trinidad and Tobago gives the relevant judicial officer an option to order corporal punishment in addition to imprisonment in certain circumstances, the Court feels bound to put on record its profound regret that the presiding officer in the State´s High Court saw fit to exercise an option which would manifestly have the effect of inflicting a punishment that is not merely in blatant violation of the State´s international obligations under the Convention, but also is universally stigmatized as cruel, inhuman, and degrading. * 75. The Court will now examine the particular circumstances in which Mr. Caesar’s sentence of corporal punishment was carried out. 76. It is established that State agents flogged Mr. Caesar with a “cat-o-nine tails” on February 5, 1998. Mr. Caesar´s affidavit leaves little to the imagination concerning the physical and emotional impact of this punishment, as well as the anguish and suffering he experienced in the moments immediately preceding the punishment. He described the experience as follows: […] On 5 February 1998, I received 15 strokes with the cat-o-nine tails. […] there were 4 other men in the cell with me. I was the last to be beaten. I was even more frightened this time […] I was still recuperating and was weak when they took me to be beaten. I was afraid that I would not come out of the beating alive because of my condition. […] […] I was taken to the room where I was to be beaten. […] the prison doctor, […] the Chief Infirmary Officer at the Port of Spain Prison, a Prison Supervisor […], two other men who I did not know but I believe that they were from the Ministry of National Security and two prison officers were present in the room. [The prison doctor] told me to take off my clothes. I told [him] that I just had surgery. He knew this. He did not reply. I took my clothes off. [The prison doctor] took my blood pressure [and] then said “he alright, go ahead.” […] […] I was then made to lie spread eagled and naked on a metal contraption, known among the prisoners as the “Merry Sandy.” It had that kind of spread-eagled shape. I could not turn my head. I could only stare ahead. The two prison officers strapped me on to the “Merry Sandy”. They tied my hands and feet tightly to it. They then covered my head with a sheet. I was scared. I was nauseous. My body was shaking. I then felt a terrible painful lash to my shoulder. My body tensed. I heard a male voice say procedurally legitimate manner, i.e. through the sanction of legislation, administrative rules or judicial order. To accept this view would be to accept that any physical punishment, no matter how torturous and cruel, can be considered lawful, as long as the punishment had been duly promulgated under the domestic law of a State. Punishment is, after all, one of the prohibited purposes of torture. […] Indeed, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment are, then, by definition unlawful; so they can hardly qualify as ‘lawful sanctions’ within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention against Torture”.