-2reparation, and ordered the State to adopt determined measures of reparation (infra
considering paragraph 1).
2.
The Orders on monitoring compliance with the Judgment issued by the Court on
November 27, 2003 5, in the case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. and
November 21, 2007 6, in the case of Caesar.
3.
The three notes of the Secretariat of the Court in which, following instructions of
the President of the Court or the Court in plenary, specific information was requested
regarding the compliance status with the Judgment of the case of Hilaire, Constantine
and Benjamin et al 7, as well as the seven notes of the Secretariat in which, following
instructions of the President of the Court, the State was reminded of the due date to
present the report required by the Court in the said Judgment 8.
4.
The brief of September 12, 2005, in which the State requested an extension to
present the report requested in the case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al.
through a note of the Secretariat of August 17, 2005 (supra having seen paragraph 3),
and the note of the Secretariat of September 13, 2005, in which the Court in plenary
conceded the requested extension until September 22, 2005.
5.
The brief presented by the representative of the victims 9 on October 28, 2014,
in the case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al.
6.
The four briefs of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter
“the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) in the case of Hilaire,
Constantine and Benjamin et al 10.
7.
The notes of the Secretariat of the Court of May 2, 2007; October 24, 2007;
March 3, 2011; and May 13, 2015, in which, following instructions of the President of
the Court, the State was required to present its report on compliance as requested on
the Judgment of the case of Caesar.

CONSIDERING THAT:
1.
In the exercise of its jurisdictional function of overseeing compliance with its
decisions 11, the Court has been monitoring the compliance with the Judgments
corresponding to the cases of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. for thirteen
years and five months (supra having seen paragraph 1), and Caesar for ten years and
5

Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Monitoring compliance
with
judgment.
Order
of
the
Court
of
November
27,
2003.
Available
at:
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/hilaire_27_11_03.pdf.
6
Cf. Case of Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the
Court
of
November
21,
2007.
Available
at:
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/Caesar_21_11_07.pdf.
7
Notes of July 16, 2004; October 25, 2004, and October 28, 2004.
8
Notes of January 16 and August 1, 2003; August 17, 2005; January 12 and March 22, 2006;
January 15, 2007, and April 23, 2015.
9
The victims of the case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al., are represented by Mr. Saul
Lehrfreund, of the law firm Simons Muirhead & Burton.
10
Briefs of December 8, 2003; July 12 and July 26, 2004, and August 15, 2005.
11
Faculty that emerges from the provisions of Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65, 67 and 68 of the
American Convention, 24, 25 and 30 of its Statute and 30, 31 and 69 of its Rules of Procedures.

Select target paragraph3