13. Furthermore, regarding the effect of section 26 of the Constitution of Barbados of impeding scrutiny of the so-called “existing laws”, the CCJ’s judgment considered that the interpretation that the courts of Barbados had been making of this clause was erroneous, and rectified this situation by establishing the correct interpretation. In this regard, it noted that “[i]t is incongruous that the same Constitution, which guarantees that every person in Barbados is entitled to certain fundamental rights and freedoms, would deprive them in perpetuity from the benefit of those rights purely because the deprivation had existed prior to the adoption of the Constitution.” It recalled that section 26 of the Constitution should be read together with section 4(1) of the Independence Order 28, which refers to “existing laws”, so that “[w]here there is a conflict between an existing law and the Constitution, the Constitution must prevail, and the courts must apply the existing laws as mandated by the Independence Order with such modifications as may be necessary to bring them into conformity with the Constitution”. Lastly, it clarified that this meant that the judges had “the duty to construe such provisions, with a view to harmonizing them, where possible, through interpretation, and under its inherent jurisdiction, by fashioning a remedy that protects from breaches and vindicates those rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights”. 14. These considerations of the CCJ concur with the spirit behind the guarantees of nonrepetition ordered by this Tribunal in the present case. Thus, the Court highlights that this judgment of the CCJ is an example of the constructive dialogue and cooperation between other courts and the Inter-American Court with a view to the compliance with the latter’s judgments.29 15. Lastly, the Court notes that there is a consensus amongst the parties that, only months after the said judgment, the State adopted, inter alia: (i) the “Offences Against the Person (Amendment) Act, 2018”; (ii) the “Prisons (Amendment) Act, 2018,” and (iii) the “Penal System Reform (Amendment) Act, 2018.” Even though neither of the parties provided the text of these laws, they both agree that they are in force, 30 while the representatives added that their purpose is to “implement the judgment” of the CCJ. 31 16. Taking into account: (i) that the CCJ’s judgment declared that section 2 of the Offences Against the Person Act was unconstitutional insofar as it established a mandatory death sentence; (ii) that the said judgment interpreted section 26 of the Constitution of Barbados to the effect that the rights and freedoms established in that instrument should prevail over the so-called “existing laws”; (iii) the indication by the representatives, which was not contested by the State, that the CCJ is the highest court of the judicature of Barbados and its decisions do not require the State to take measures to implement them; (iv) that the parties agree on the adoption of legislation by the State which, according to the representatives, implements the CCJ’s judgment, and (v) that the representatives have expressly recognized that, with the said actions, the State has complied with this item, this Court concludes that the State has fully complied with the reparations relating to ensuring 28 Section 4(1) of the Independence Order establishes, in what is relevant: “Existing laws 4. 1. Subject to the provisions of this section, the existing laws shall be construed with such modifications, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions as may be necessary to bring them into conformity with the Barbados Independence Act 1966 and this Order”. Cf. Judgment of the Caribbean Court of Justice in the cases of Jabari Sensimania Nervais v. The Queen and Dwayne Omar Severin v. The Queen, supra footnote 26. 29 In the same sense, see Case of Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2017, considerandum 43. 30 2019. Cf. State’s report of December 14, 2018, and written observations of the representatives of February 22, 31 Cf. Written observations of the representatives of February 22, 2019. The State’s report of December 14, 2018, includes a similar indication. Despite this agreement and the information provided concerning the adopted legislation, in its written observations of March 6, 2019, the Commission welcomed the CCJ’s judgment and considered that “the State should take the legislative steps to amend the Offences Against the Person Act, so as to bring it into conformity with the judgment of the CCJ and the orders o[f]” this Court. -7-