11 to the object and purpose established in the Order of the President (supra para. 8), taking into account the observations of the State. Furthermore, the Court considers that due to the alleged victim’s direct interest in this case, his declaration cannot be assessed separately, but rather must be weighed within the context of the body of evidence in this case and in accordance with the rules of sound judgment.15 38. Additionally, the State challenged the affidavits submitted by Edward Fitzgerald C.B.E., Q.C., Dr. Timothy Green, and Professor Nigel Eastman. Regarding Mr. Fitzgerald’s affidavit, the State questioned certain aspects of his expert opinion regarding the relevance of mental state to both conviction and sentencing in death penalty cases. Furthermore, the State affirmed that the affidavit offers “no evidence […] to prove that there is a ‘norm of international law prohibiting both the judicial imposition of the death penalty, and the actual execution of a person suffering from significant mental disorder,’ or that such a norm has achieved jus cogens status”. Regarding Dr. Timothy Green’s affidavit, the State indicated that it “add[ed] nothing to [the alleged victim’s] case[, as it merely] describes, in the words of the Caribbean Court of Justice, an ‘adolescent and adult life style [which] is very like the usual aberrant behavior of thousands of under-privileged young men indulging in some marijuana while over-indulging in alcohol.’” Finally, regarding Professor Nigel Eastman’s affidavit, the State indicated that he had not examined Mr. Cadogan and his affidavit “entirely relies upon the affidavits and reports previously submitted to the Court.” Nevertheless, the State did not challenge the admissibility of these declarations, but rather the weight the Court should give them with regard to certain alleged facts or opinions the State contests. The Court therefore admits this documentary evidence to the extent that it relates to the object and purpose established in the President’s Order (supra para. 8), taking into account the observations of the State, and will weigh them in accordance with the rules of sound judgment and in conjunction with the body of evidence in the proceedings. * * * 39. Having examined the evidence in the case file, the Court will proceed with its analysis of the alleged violations of the American Convention in light of the facts that it deems proven, as well as the parties’ legal arguments.16 VI VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 4(1)17 AND 4(2)18 OF THE CONVENTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1)19 THEREOF 15 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 70; Case of Escher et al., supra note 6, para. 74, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra note 6, para. 30. 16 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.), supra note 12, para. 76; Case of Escher et al., supra note 6, para. 77, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra note 6, para. 40. 17 Article 4.1 establishes that: “[e]very person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of life.” 18 Article 4.2 establishes that: “[i]n countries that have not abolished the death penalty, it may be imposed only for the most serious crimes and pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court and in accordance with a law establishing such punishment, enacted prior to the commission of the crime. The application of such punishment shall not be extended to crimes to which it does not presently apply.” 19 Article 1.1 stipulates that: “[t]he States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of