Article 2 of the American Convention, in that it “prevent[ed] judicial scrutiny” over the said section 2 of the Offences Against the Person Act.15 5. When ruling on the corresponding reparations, in the ninth operative paragraph as well as in paragraph 104 of the Judgment, the Court established that the State had to “adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the imposition of the death penalty does not contravene the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention, and in particular, that it is not imposed through mandatory sentencing. In this regard, the State must adopt such legislative or other measures as are necessary to ensure that the Constitution and laws of Barbados, particularly Section 2 of the Offences Against the Person Act and Section 26 of the Constitution, are brought into compliance with the American Convention”. 6. In its order of November 2011 (supra having seen paragraph 2), the Court assessed positively that the State “had decided to abolish the mandatory aspect of the death penalty [… and] section 26 of the Constitution of Barbados”, and that it had formed a “Committee to Study the Ramifications of Repealing Section 26 of the Constitution” in order to consider, inter alia, “the legislative changes necessary to repeal the mandatory death penalty” as well as “the repeal of section 26 of the Constitution”. However, since the Court had not yet received information that demonstrated that said legislative amendments had been made, it concluded that the measure was still pending compliance and required the State “an updated report on the status of the draft bills reviewed by the ‘Committee to Study the Ramifications of Repealing section 26 of the Constitution’, as well as a copy of those bills”.16 A.2. Considerations of the Court 7. The Court notes that, from the moment the Judgment was delivered up until mid2018, Barbados, through the Committee to Study the Ramifications of Repealing section 26 of the Constitution (supra considerandum 6), prepared several bills in order to adapt its domestic law to what had been requested by the Inter-American Court, namely: (i) the “Offences Against the Person (Amendment) Bill, 2015,” which sought “to abolish the mandatory imposition of the penalty of death for the offence of murder”;17 (ii) the “Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2014,” which purpose was, inter alia, to “remove the provision authorising a mandatory sentence of death in section 15” and “to amend section 26 to redefine the effect of existing law in relation to the fundamental rights provisions”,18 and (iii) the “Penal System Reform (Amendment) Bill, 2014”, in order to “improve (a) the guidelines applicable to the mitigation of an offender’s sentence, and (b) the general judicial sections 12 to 23 to the extent that the law in question (a) is a law (in this section referred to as “an existing law”) that was enacted or made before 30th November 1966 and has continued to be part of the law of Barbados at all times since that day […]”.Cf. Case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs supra footnote 1, para. 75, footnote 69. 15 Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra footnote 2, para. 75. 16 In the said Order it was verified that said Committee had examined three bills: the “Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2010”; the “Offences Against the Person (Amendment) Bill, 2014,” and the “Penal System Reform (Amendment) Bill, 2010.” 17 2015). Cf. “Offences Against the Person (Amendment) Bill, 2015” (annex to the State’s report of September 2, 18 Cf. “Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2014” (annex to the State’s report of September 24, 2015). In addition, previously, in its report of March 1, 2012, the State submitted a copy of the “Constitution (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 2012,” which aimed at “the repeal and replacement of section 15 to remove the reference to the mandatory sentence of death” and “the repeal of section 26, that is, the provision that saves certain laws that are inconsistent with sections 12 to 23 of the Constitution, which sections set out the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual”. However, in its subsequent reports, the State did not refer to this bill again, merely reporting on the “Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2014”. -4-