-4- 8. That in this case the measures requested in favor of Mr. Cadogan seek to allow for the possibility that the organs of the Inter-American system of human rights protection evaluate the possible existence of violations of the American Convention to his detriment. 9. That the Court observed in the case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados, inter alia, that: 113. […] it is fundamental that litigants be able to complete their […] petitions and applications before the Commission and Court, respectively, before any execution may be carried out. This is a natural consequence of Barbados’ ratification of the American Convention and recognition of the jurisdiction of this Court. A different reading of the Convention would be contrary to its object and purpose, and would render the access of the individual to the Inter-American System, as well as Articles 62(3) and 63(1) of such instrument, meaningless.5 10. That if the State executes Mr. Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan, it would cause an irreparable situation as well as possibly constitute conduct incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.6 11. That the situation described by the Commission in the present case (supra Having Seen clause 2) reveals prima facie the possible existence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, rendering it necessary to avoid irreparable damage to the right to life and physical integrity of Mr. Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan. 12. That the adoption of these provisional measures does not entail a decision on the 7 merits of the controversy. NOW THEREFORE: THE PRESIDENT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in accordance with Article 63(2) of the American Convention and Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure, DECIDES: Cf. Case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C Nº. 169, para. 113. 6 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 26, 2001, Consideration twelve; Matter of Boyce and Joseph. supra note 4, Consideration eight, and Case of Raxcacó et al., supra note 4, Consideration nine.. 5 Cf. Case of Guerrero Galluci and Martínez Barrios. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Consideration fourteen. Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & II, supra note 3, Consideration twenty-two; Matter of “Globovision” Television Station. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 29, 2008, Consideration thirteen. 7