Barbados’ omission to inform on the availability of such evaluation had resulted in the violation of Mr. DaCosta Cadogan’s right to a fair and ordered the present reparation measure, so that all persons accused of a crime whose sanction is the mandatory death penalty would be duly informed of their right to obtain a psychiatric evaluation.33 20. In its report of March 2012, Barbados advised that there was a “practice” in place by which “everyone accused of murder is taken to the Psychiatric Hospital for a psychiatric evaluation before their first appearance at court on the charge”, which was “working satisfactorily”. The representatives and the Commission did not contest the existence of this practice. In their observations, the representatives raised questions regarding what happened once the psychiatric evaluation had been carried out and regarding its nature.34 Meanwhile, the Commission welcomed that this practice existed; however, it considered that it lacked sufficient information on the “effective prevention of similar occurrences”, pointing out that it had not been codified.35 Later on, Barbados reported that it had prepared three bills in order to comply with this measure: (a) “Mental Health (Amendment) Bill, 2012”;36 (b) the “Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 2014”,37 and (c) the “Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 2018”, adding, with regard to the latter, that it had completed its passage through the House of Assembly and the Senate, and received the Governor General’s assent on November 12, 2018 38. In addition, the State did not contest the information provided by the representatives concerning the CCJ’s judgment declaring the mandatory imposition of the death sentence unconstitutional, on which basis this Court considered that Barbados had fully complied with the measure relating to adopt all necessary measures to ensure that Section 2 of the Offences Against the Person Act, which established the mandatory death penalty for cases of murder, was brought into compliance with the American Convention (supra consideranda 8 to 16). 21. Taking into account that the measure examined required the State to take the necessary measures to ensure that all persons accused of a crime whose sanction was the mandatory death penalty would be duly informed of their right to obtain a psychiatric evaluation, and considering that the provision that allowed for the imposition of the mandatory death penalty has been declared unconstitutional and is no longer in force, the state. Third, considering that Mr. DaCosta Cadogan was afforded state-appointed legal counsel, the presiding judge had the duty to adopt a more active role in ensuring that all necessary measures were carried out in order to guarantee a fair trial. Fourth, Mr. DaCosta Cadogan requested during his appeal process that he be allowed the opportunity to submit a more detailed evaluation of his alleged personality disorder and alcohol dependence, which was denied”. Cf. Case of DaCosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra footnote 1, para. 89. 33 Cf. Case of DaCosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra footnote 1, paras. 88 and 90. 34 The representatives noted that it was necessary that the State informed “whether a written psychiatric report is routinely provided to the trial judge, the prosecution and the defence”, as well as further details on “the specific nature of the psychiatric evaluation” and, in particular, whether this “is limited to pre-trial issues such as competence and fitness to plead/ stand in trial, or whether it also includes an assessment for mental condition defenses relating to the defendants[’] mental state at the time of [the] alleged offence”. Cf. Written observations of the representatives of May 3, 2013. 35 Written observations of the Commission of May 2, 2012. 36 According to the text of the draft bill provided by the State, its purpose was “to make it a mandatory requirement that a Court must inform an accused person charged with the offence of murder or an indictable offence for which the penalty is death, of his entitlement to have a psychiatric evaluation carried out by a senior consultant psychiatrist before the commencement of his trial”. Cf. Mental Health (Amendment) Bill, 2012 (annex to the State’s report of March 1, 2012). 37 According to the text of the draft bill provided by the State, its purpose was to “make provision for a person who is to be arraigned upon indictment for the offence for murder to undergo a psychiatric evaluation to determine whether that person is fit to plead; and [… to] allow judges to intervene where a defence should be raised in relation to an accused”. Cf. Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 2014 (annex to the State’s report of September 24, 2015). 38 Cf. State’s report of December 14, 2018. Barbados did not submit copy of said bill. -9-