3 Those circumstances are, however, subject to policy considerations of the State, and are not concretized in a judicial stay”; and d) “there is no guarantee or even a specific undertaking that warrants of execution will not be issued at the discretion of the […] State.” 4. The request of the Inter-American Commission that the Court, based on Article 63(2) of the American Convention, order the State to “take all measures necessary to preserve [the] life and physical integrity [of Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan] so as not to hinder the processing of his case before the Inter-American Court and inform the Court immediately concerning the measures taken to comply with the request.” 5. The application filed with the Court by the Commission on October 31, 2008, regarding case No. 12.645 (Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan). 6. The Order of the President of the Court of November 4, 2008, whereby the President DECIDE[D]: 1. To order the State to adopt the provisional measures necessary to protect the life and physical integrity of Mr. Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan, so as not to hinder the processing of his case before the Inter-American system. 2. To require the State to inform the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, within 15 days of the notification of the present Order, regarding the steps it has taken in fulfillment of this Order. 3. To require the representatives of the beneficiary of the present urgent measures to submit their observations to the State’s report within five days of its reception, and to require the Commission to submit its observations to the State’s report within seven days of its reception. […] 7. The State’s communication of November 19, 2008, whereby it informed that “Mr. Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan is incarcerated at Her Majesty’s Prison at Dodds and has not been executed.” The State also “reiterate[d] […] that under Barbadian law no warrant of execution can be issued against an individual while either the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights or the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is processing his petition, as a result of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, as established in [the decision of the Caribbean Court of Justice in the case of] Attorney General et al. v. Jeffrey Joseph and Lennox Ricardo Boyce. In this case, the Caribbean Court of Justice decided, inter alia, that the doctrine of legitimate expectation provides an individual with the right to conclude his petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, to have the Commission’s reports considered by the Barbados Privy Council, and to have his execution stayed until those processes have been completed.” 8. The Commission’s communication of December 2, 2008, whereby it observed that: a) the information sent by the State is the same that had been provided to the Commission on July 4, 2008, and to which the Commission gave due consideration, as stated in its request for provisional measures; b) the case law referred to by the State indicates that, in some circumstances, it would not move forward with steps to execute a death sentence during the pendency of a petition before an international instance, but that those circumstances are subject to policy considerations of the State, and are not concretized in a judicial