2 c) Assessment of the Evidence 78-83 VIII. Proven Facts para. IX. Violation of Article 4(1) and 4(2) in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention (Mandatory Death Penalty) 85-118 X. Violation of Articles 7(5), 8, and 25 in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention (Right to Trial Within a Reasonable Time, Right to a Fair Trial and Judicial Protection) 119-152 XI. Violation of Article 5(1) and 5(2) in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention (Detention Conditions) 153-172 XII. Violation of Articles 4(6) and 8 in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention (Amnesty, Pardon or Commutation of Sentence) paras. 173-189 XIII. Violation of Article 4 of the American Convention (Non-compliance with the Provisional Measures Ordered by the Court with Respect to Joey Ramiah, Case No. 12,129) paras. 190-200 XIV. Reparations (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) paras. 201-222 XV. Operative Paragraphs 223 paras. 84 paras. paras. paras. para. I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE 1) The present Case is the result of a joinder of the Hilaire, Constantine et al., and Benjamin et al. Cases, 2 that were submitted to the Court separately by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Inter-American Commission" or "the Commission") against the State of Trinidad and Tobago (hereinafter "the State" or "Trinidad and Tobago") on May 25, 1999, February 22, 2000, and October 5, 2000, respectively. 2) The Commission’s Applications are based on petitions numbered 11,816 (Haniff Hilaire), 11,787 (George Constantine), 11,814 (Wenceslaus James), 11,840 2 The Inter-American Court, pursuant to Article 28 of its Rules of Procedure, ordered the joinder on November 30, 2001. In said Order, the Court took into account, inter alia, that the parties to the Hilaire, Constantine et al. and Benjamin et al. Cases were the same, that is, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the State of Trinidad and Tobago. Likewise, the Court considered that the purpose of the action was virtually identical in the three cases, in the sense that they all involved the issue of due process guarantees in cases where the "mandatory death penalty" is applied to all persons convicted of murder in Trinidad and Tobago, the only differences being the particular circumstances of each case. And finally, the Articles of the American Convention alleged to have been violated in each case were fundamentally the same. Cf. I/A Court H.R., Hilaire, Constantine et al., and Benjamin et al. Cases, Order of November 30, 2001.