The Inter-american Regional System 3 mandatory death sentences following a conviction for murder are in violation of Article 5, holding that that provision’s guarantees “presuppose that persons protected under the Convention will be regarded and treated as individual human beings, particularly in circumstances in which a State Party proposes to limit or restrict the most basic rights and freedoms of an individual.”513 The mandatory imposition of the death penalty based on the category of crime and not the individual’s personal circumstances or the circumstances of a particular case therefore amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment. In Hilaire and Others v Trinidad and Tobago, the Inter-American Court, referring to the decision of its European counterpart in Soering v UK, found that the mental anguish suffered by death row prisoners awaiting execution, which could be carried out without notice, constituted cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.514 This followed expert testimony that “the procedures leading up to the death by hanging of those convicted of murder terrorize and depress the prisoners; others cannot sleep due to nightmares, much less eat.”515 3.3.2.2 Corporal punishment In Loayza Tamayo v Peru, the Court, once again citing the jurisprudence of the European Court, held that “Any use of force that is not strictly necessary to ensure proper behavior on the part of the detainee constitutes an assault on the dignity of the person… , in violation of Article 5.”516 In Caesar v Trinidad and Tobago, the Court, referring to the jurisprudence of both the Human Rights Committee and the European Court, found that the very nature of corporal punishment for crimes “reflects an institutionalization of violence, which, although permitted by the law, ordered by the State’s judges and carried out by its prison authorities, is a sanction incompatible with the Convention. As such, corporal punishment by flogging constitutes a form of torture.”517 In that case, the Court also found “severe aggravating circumstances,” including “the extreme humiliation caused by the flogging itself; the anguish, stress and fear experienced while awaiting the punishment in prison, a period that was marked IACommHR, Baptiste v Grenada, Case 11743, Report No. 38/00, 13 April 2000, §89. See also IACommHR, Aitken v Jamaica, Case 12275, Report No. 58/02, 21 October 2002, §111; IACommHR, Knights v Grenada, Case 12028, Report No. 47/01, 4 April 2001, §81. 514 Hilaire and Others v Trinidad and Tobago (2002), op. cit., §§167–169. The Court found that the legislation permitting this system was incompatible with the ACHR. 515 Ibid. §168. 516 Loayza Tamayo v Peru (1997), op. cit., §57. 517 Caesar v Trinidad and Tobago, IACHR (Series C) No. 123, judgement of 11 March 2005, §73. 513 114