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 a mandatory sentence, and that the Constitution and laws of Barbados are brought into compliance with the American Convention and, specifically, remove the immunizing effect of section 26 of the Constitution of Barbados on existing laws. 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 B.1. Measure ordered by the Court and monitoring of compliance in previous Order 17. In the tenth operative paragraph and in paragraph 105 of the Judgment, the Court provided that, “in order to guarantee that events such as those analyzed in the […] Judgment are not repeated”, the State had to “ensure that all persons accused of a crime whose sanction is the mandatory death penalty are duly informed, at the initiation of the criminal proceedings against them, of the right to obtain a psychiatric evaluation carried out by a state-employed psychiatrist recognized under Barbados’s domestic law”. 18. In its Order of November 2011, the Court declared that Barbados had “partially fulfilled” this measure. It took note of the information provided by the State that a committee charged with considering this issue and made up by different State authorities had considered that “the best procedural moment for the provision of such information would be at the initiation of the criminal proceeding - at the arraignment hearing (the moment when the individual is formally charged with the capital offence in a court of law)”. In this regard, the Court considered that “the decision made by the State in order to ensure the fulfillment of this obligation [was] a positive step”. However, it indicated that it was necessary for the parties to present “further information […] on whether the measure decided upon has already been applied and on how it is functioning, if applicable”. B.2. Considerations of the Court 19. The Court recalls that, in the present case, it found that “[t]hough domestic law permits the presiding judge to solicit the opinion of an expert for this purpose, […] the State failed to order that a psychiatric evaluation be carried out in order to determine, inter alia, the existence of a possible alcohol dependency or other “personality disorders” that could have affected Mr. DaCosta Cadogan at the time of the offense, and it also failed to ensure that Mr. DaCosta and his counsel were aware of the availability of a free, voluntary, and detailed mental health evaluation in order to prepare his defense in the trial”. It considered that “[t]he fact that the State did not inform either Mr. DaCosta Cadogan or his attorney of his right to obtain such an evaluation may have resulted in the exclusion of evidence relevant to the preparation of his defense”, which resulted in that “Mr. DaCosta Cadogan’s mental health at the time of the offense was never fully evaluated by a mental health professional for the purpose of preparing his defense in a case where the death penalty was the only possible sentence”. Therefore, “taking into account the particular circumstances of the case and the strict procedural requirements that the State was obliged to observe due to the possibility of a mandatory imposition of a death sentence”, 32 it concluded that 32 In particular, the Court highlighted that “[u]nlike other criminal proceedings in which the State’s passive conduct with regard to the availability of mental health evaluations would be admissible, Mr. DaCosta Cadogan’s case is different for a number of reasons. First, the case involved the possibility of a mandatory death sentence, and […] such proceedings require[d] the most ample and strict observation of due process rights. Second, the particular situation of the accused at the time of the offense reasonably required at least an assessment of whether a situation of alcohol dependency or some personality disorder existed, especially because the judge [had] submitted before the jury the issue of the effect that alcohol and drugs may have had on the accused ́s mental -8-