-2-
Consequently, the Commission requested an urgent response from the State to
preserve Mr. Cardogan’s life and physical integrity;
d)
on January 23, 2007, and January 14 and May 5, 2008, the Commission
requested the State to provide information on Mr. Cadogan’s situation and any steps
adopted by Barbados to protect his life and physical integrity in the context of the
precautionary measures;
e)
on July 4, 2008, the State informed the Commission that warrants of
execution had not been issued nor read to Mr. Cadogan pursuant to the decision by
the Caribbean Court of Justice in the case of Attorney General et al. v. Jeffrey Joseph
and Lennox Ricardo Boyce. The State indicated that, according to that decision, “no
warrant of execution can be issued […] while either the Inter-American Commission
or the [Inter-American] Court is processing the petition [because] the doctrine of
legitimate expectations provide[s] an individual the right to conclude his petition
before the Inter-American Commission, to have the Commission’s reports considered
by the Barbados Privy Council and to have his execution stayed until those processes
have been completed”, and
f)
the Caribbean Court of Justice stated, in the case of Attorney General et al. v.
Jeffrey Joseph and Lennox Ricardo Boyce, that “[…] protracted delay on the part of
[an] international body in disposing of the proceedings initiated before it by a
condemned person, could justify the State, notwithstanding the existence of the
condemned man’s legitimate expectation [not to be executed before or until such
international body has disposed of the proceedings], [in] carry[ing] out an execution
before completion of the international process.”
3.
The legal arguments of the Commission on which the request for provisional
measures is based, namely, that:
a)
Mr. Cadogan “is under a continuing risk of irreparable damage pending the
completion of his proceedings before the [I]nter-American human rights system”;
b)
“the execution of the alleged victim prior to the completion of his process at
the Court would render any eventual judgment moot in terms of the efficacy of
potential remedies, such as commutation of his death sentence”;
c)
pursuant to the decision of the Caribbean Court of Justice in the case of
Attorney General et al. v. Jeffrey Joseph and Lennox Ricardo Boyce, there are certain
circumstances under which the State “would not move forward with steps to execute
a death sentence during the pendency of a petition before an international instance.
Those circumstances are, however, subject to policy considerations of the State, and
are not concretized in a judicial stay”, and
d)
“there is no guarantee or even a specific undertaking that warrants of
execution will not be issued at the discretion of the […] State.”
4.
The request of the Inter-American Commission that the Court, based on Article 63(2)
of the American Convention, order the State to “take all measures necessary to preserve
[the] life and physical integrity [of Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan] so as not to hinder the
processing of his case before the Inter-American Court and inform the Court immediately
concerning the measures taken to comply with the request.”