2 d. The communication of the State of 5 February 1999, concerning the situation of Anthony Briggs, requesting the Court to “confirm” that its Order of 29 August 1998 (supra 1.a) was “discharged insofar as it relates to [him].” e. The communication of the Commission of 11 February 1999, informing the Court of developments concerning the circumstances of Wencesalus James, Anthony Briggs, Anderson Noel, Anthony Garcia, Haniff Hilaire, Denny Baptiste and Darrin Roger Thomas. f. The communication of 3 May 1999, received in the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) on 7 May 1999, in which the Commission presented information on the most recent decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council*, the State’s final Court of Appeal, and on developments concerning the circumstances of the petitioners. In the said communication, the Commission informed that, in the Case of Anthony Briggs, pursuant to Article 51 of the Convention, it issued Report No. 44/99 on 9 March 1999, along with its conclusions and recommendations, and required the State to provide a response to the offer of friendly settlement of the matter within 30 days. The Commission also noted that the State had rejected its recommendations on the matter on 16 April 1999, declaring that “the law should take its course.” Finally, the Commission indicated that it had decided to publish the said document No. 44/99 in its Annual Report for 1998. g. The communication of the State of 20 May 1999, in which it requested that the Court “confirm that [its] Order of August 29th, 1998, concerning the imposition of provisional measures is now discharged insofar as it relates to [Mr.] Briggs.” h. The note of the Secretariat of 20 May 1999, in which it requested the Commission to submit, within the following 24 hours, an urgent report relating the situation of Anthony Briggs. i. The note of the Commission of 21 May 1999, in which it requested the Court to grant an extension until Tuesday, 25 May 1999 for the submission of its urgent report on the situation of Anthony Briggs. j. The note of the Secretariat of 21 May 1999, in which it informed the Commission that the President had granted the extension requested. k. The urgent report presented by the Commission on 25 May 1999, containing its observations on the request of the State for the lifting of the Provisional Measures adopted in favour of Anthony Briggs. 2. With respect to the Commission’s request for amplification of the Provisional Measures in favour of twenty persons, who have also been sentenced to death by the State, and on whose behalf petitions have been submitted to the Commission: a. The aforementioned communication of the Commission of 3 May 1999, in which it submitted to the Court, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the American Convention and Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure,”) a request for amplification of the Provisional Measures adopted by the Court in the James et al. Cases, to include Wilberforce Bernard (Case No. 12.140), Naresh Boodram and Joey Ramiah (Case No. 12.129), Clarence Charles (Case. No 11.851), Phillip Chotolal (Case No. 12.112), George Constantine (Case No. 11.787), Rodney Davis (Case No. 12.072), Natasha De Leon (Case No. 12.093), Mervyn Edmund (Case No. 12.042), Alfred Frederick (Case No. 12.082), Nigel Mark (Case No. 12.137), Wayne Matthews (Case No. 12.076), Steve Mungroo (Case No. 12.141), Vijay Mungroo (Case No. 12.111), Wilson Prince (Case No. 12.005), Martin Reid (Case No. 12.052), Noel Seepersad (Case No. 12.075), Gangaleen Tahaloo (Case No. 12.073), Keiron Thomas (Case No. 11.853) and Samuel Winchester * In the said decision, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that “[t]o carry out the death sentences imposed on the appellants before the final disposal of their respective applications to the InterAmerican Commission and Court of Human Rights will be a breach of their constitutional rights,” and ordered that the carrying out of the said death sentences be stayed accordingly.