13 illness is […] inhuman and degrading” and a violation of the right to personal integrity recognized in Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention. Finally, the representatives alleged that a mandatory death sentence “precludes any opportunity on the part of an offender to make representations to the court as to whether the death penalty is a permissible or appropriate form of punishment. It also prevents any effective review by a higher court as to the propriety of a sentence of death in the circumstances of any particular case. […] As a consequence, individuals subjected to this law cannot effectively exercise their right to a hearing, with due guarantees, by an independent tribunal (Article 8(1)) and their right to appeal the judgment to a higher court (Article 8(2)(h)). [The representatives therefore] submitted that the mandatory death penalty is also in violation of Article 8 of the Convention.” 45. The State did not dispute the Commission and the representatives’ arguments on the issue of whether a mandatory death sentence imposed in light of Section 2 of OAPA violates the American Convention. Rather, the State mentioned that “all of the grounds of complaint advanced in the [a]pplication of the Commission, except for one aspect of the relief requested in that [a]pplication, [namely, the issue of the commutation of the alleged victim’s death sentence,] will be satisfied upon completion of the necessary legislative changes” ordered by this Tribunal in the Boyce et al. case, which the State intends to comply with fully (supra para. 26). 46. This Tribunal has already analyzed the issue of mandatory death sentencing in Barbados in the Boyce et al. Judgment.20 The Court observes that the present case does not submit before this Tribunal new issues regarding the imposition of mandatory death sentencing in Barbados, except for the allegations concerning Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention (infra paras. 60 to 62). The Court considers that its position on this issue has been clearly established in previous cases, particularly in the Boyce et al. case, and, therefore, it would appear unnecessary to request additional findings from the Court in that regard. Nonetheless, because the Commission decided to submit the present case to this Court’s contentious jurisdiction, the Tribunal deems it pertinent to reiterate the criteria established in previous occasions on the issue of mandatory death sentencing. 47. In interpreting the issue of death penalty in general, the Court has observed that Article 4(2) of the Convention allows for the deprivation of the right to life by the imposition of the death penalty in those countries that have not abolished it. That is, capital punishment is not per se incompatible with or prohibited by the American Convention. However, the Convention has set a number of strict limitations to the imposition of capital punishment.21 First, the imposition of the death penalty must be limited to the most serious common crimes not related to political offenses.22 Second, the sentence must be individualized in conformity with the characteristics of the crime, as well as the participation and degree of culpability of the accused.23 Finally, the imposition of this sanction is subject 20 Cf. Case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 169, paras. 46-63. 21 Cf. Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-3/83 of September 8, 1983. Series A No. 3, para. 55. 22 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine, and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 106; Case of Boyce et al., supra note 20, para. 50, and Case of Raxcacó-Reyes v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, para. 68. See also Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 21, para. 55. 23 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine, and Benjamin et al., supra note 22, paras. 103, 106, and 108; Case of Boyce et al., supra note 20, para. 50, and Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 22, para. 81. See also Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 21, para. 55.