Court concludes that the State has fully complied with the reparation ordered in the tenth operative paragraph of the judgment. 22. Nonetheless, this Court considers it would be desirable for this type of evaluation to be conducted in all cases involving offenses that could result in the imposition of the death penalty, even though this is no longer mandatory, owing to the “exceptionally serious and irreversible nature of the death penalty”, and the fact that the obligation to respect and ensure the right to a fair trial is “most broad and demanding in those processes in which a penalty of death may be imposed”.39 C. To set aside and not carry out the death sentence imposed on Mr. DaCosta Cadogan; as well as to provide him with a hearing for the determination of the appropriate sentence in his case and not impose a death sentence on him C.1. Measures ordered by the Court and monitoring of compliance in previous Order 23. In the eleventh and twelfth operative paragraphs and in paragraphs 109 and 110 of the Judgment, the Court established the following reparation measures: i) to “set aside and not carry out the death penalty imposed on [Mr.] DaCosta Cadogan and provide him, within a reasonable time and […] without the need for a new trial, a hearing for the judicial determination of the appropriate sentence in his case, in consideration of the particular characteristics of the crime and the participation and degree of culpability of the defendant”. This had to be “carried out under the new legislative framework applicable in Barbados as a result of the legislative measures ordered by this Court in order to ensure that the imposition of the death penalty does not violate the rights and freedoms ensured in the Convention”, and ii) “not [to] impose a sentence of death on Mr. DaCosta Cadogan under the new legislative measures ordered” in the Judgement. 24. In its Order of November 2011, the Court welcomed the steps taken by the State to comply with these measures.40 The Tribunal also underlined that, according to the information provided by the parties, their compliance “necessarily depend[ed] on [the] enactment of the legislative measures ordered in the […] Judgment”. Therefore, it “f[ound] that [said] reparations ha[d] not been complied with and request[ed] that the State submit information specifying when Mr. Cadogan’s resentencing hearing is likely to occur”. C.2. Considerations of the Court 25. The Court notes that, between March 2012 and mid-2018, the State informed that it had drafted several bills in order to bring domestic law into compliance with what had been required in the Judgment in relation to the mandatory nature of the death penalty,41 and 39 Cf. Case of DaCosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra footnote 1, paras. 84 and 85. 40 The Court pointed out that the State had “highlighted that its draft legislation abolishing the mandatory death penalty […] provide[d] for the judicial determination, at a review hearing, of the sentence of any person convicted of murder and sentenced to death prior to the date of entry into force of that legislation”, and that it “further provide[d] that a person whose sentence [was] reviewed [... would] not be subjected to a sentence of death”; thus, Mr. DaCosta Cadogan would be provided with “a re-sentencing hearing ‘[a]s soon as the legislative changes ha[d] been enacted’”. 41 These are: (i) the “Offences Against the Person (Amendment) Bill, 2015”; (ii) the “Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2014” and (iii) the “Penal System Reform (Amendment) Bill, 2014” (supra considerandum 15 and footnotes 30 and 31). -10-