Barbados had fully complied with one reparation measure,8 and also determined that it had partially complied with one reparation (infra considerandum 18). 2. Pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the Judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” This obligation includes the State’s duty to inform the Court of the steps taken to comply with each measure ordered, and is essential to enable the Court to evaluate the status of compliance with the judgment as a whole. 9 The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with the provisions of the Convention and their practical effects (effet utile) in their respective domestic laws. These obligations must be interpreted and applied so that the guaranteed protected is truly practical and effective, recalling the special nature of human rights treaties.10 3. The Court will rule on all the reparation measures pending compliance and the reimbursement to the Legal Assistance Fund ordered in the year 2017 (supra having seen paragraph 9). The Tribunal will structure its considerations as follows: A. Adoption of legislative or other measures to ensure that the laws and the Constitution of Barbados are in compliance with the American Convention 3 B. To ensure that anyone accused of a crime whose sanction is the mandatory death penalty is duly informed of the right to obtain a psychiatric evaluation 8 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 10 D. Reimbursement of the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund 12 A. Adoption of legislative or other measures to ensure that the laws and the Constitution of Barbados are in compliance with the American Convention A.1. Measures ordered by the Court and monitoring of compliance in previous Order 4. In the Judgment the Court concluded that section 2 of the Offences Against the Person Act of 1994,11 which regulated the death penalty in Barbados, was per se contrary to the American Convention because it “impede[d] the exercise of the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life”12. This was because it “mechanically and generically impose[d] the death penalty on all persons found guilty of murder”, thus “fail[ing] to individualize the sentence in conformity with the characteristics of the crime, as well as the participation and degree of culpability of the accused”.13 Also, the Tribunal determined that section 26 of the Constitution of Barbados14 was incompatible with the obligations of the State pursuant to 8 The State fully complied with the measure relating to making the payment for reimbursement of costs and expenses. 9 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, considerandum 5, and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2019, considerandum 2. 10 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Jurisdiction. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37, and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia, supra footnote 9, considerandum 2. 11 This article establishes that “[a]ny person convicted of murder shall be sentenced to, and suffer, death.” Cf. Case of DaCosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra footnote 1, para. 70. 12 13 Cf. Case of DaCosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra footnote 1, para. 70. Cf. Case of DaCosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra footnote 1, para. 57. 14 Section 26 of the Constitution of Barbados indicates, in what is relevant: “[n]othing contained in or done under the authority of any written law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of any provision of -3-