19 1994 is such a law, the mandatory death penalty cannot be challenged domestically on grounds of incompatibility with fundamental human rights. Therefore, this Court and the Commission are the only fora in which the alleged victim can raise the complaints set out in these submissions.” Based on the Court’s jurisprudence, the representatives argued that “Barbados has failed to abide by its obligation under Article 2 of the Convention [because] it has failed to take any steps to bring [S]ection 2 of the OAPA 1994 into conformity with its international obligations under the Convention[, and because] it has failed to take any step to repeal [S]ection 26 of the Constitution.” 67. The State alleged that, due to the binding nature of the Court’s decision in Boyce et al. v. Barbados, it has decided to repeal Section 26 of the Barbados Constitution. The State submitted that its actions taken in compliance with the Boyce et al. Judgment are solemn commitments and that the State will notify the Court when the necessary legislative reforms have been effected. Therefore, with the repeal of Section 26, the State will be able to amend or derogate the Offenses Against the Person Act 1994. Nonetheless, “these measures require full legislative scrutiny and consideration. […] A large number of laws may be affected and all of the likely implications and consequences must be appropriately addressed.” On the other hand, “[i]n relation to the amendment of [Section] 2 of the Offences Against the Person Act, although the section itself could be readily amended, such amendment can only be made after careful consideration of the other, consequential legislative changes which may be required.” 68. The Court has previously held that a State Party to the Convention “must adopt all measures so that the provisions of the Convention are effectively fulfilled in its domestic legal system, as Article 2 of the Convention requires.”48 The Court has also stated that, in complying with the general obligation to respect and guarantee rights, States are obliged to “take affirmative action, avoid taking measures that restrict or infringe a fundamental right, and eliminate measures and practices that restrict or violate a fundamental right.”49 That is, pursuant to Article 2 of the American Convention, States not only have an affirmative obligation to adopt the legislative measures necessary to guarantee the exercise of the rights recognized in the Convention, but must also refrain both from promulgating laws that disregard or impede the free exercise of these rights and from suppressing or modifying the existing laws protecting them.50 These obligations derive from and are a natural consequence of the State’s ratification of the American Convention. 69. In the present case, the Court is being asked to analyze once again whether the State of Barbados has failed to comply with Article 2 of the American Convention in light of Section 2 of its Offences Against the Person Act and Section 26 of the Constitution of Barbados. This Tribunal has already declared the State’s international responsibility as it relates to said laws in the Boyce et al. case. However, as this issue has again been brought before the Court, it must reiterate the findings established in the Boyce et al. case on this matter (supra para. 46). 48 Cf. Case of the “Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo-Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 87; Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 11, para. 150, and Case of Boyce et al., supra note 20, para. 78. 49 Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 81. 50 Cf. Case of Castillo-Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 207; Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 11, para. 57, and Case of Salvador-Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008 Series C No. 179, para. 122.