22 recognized as formal mental disorders.”60 Nonetheless, the State did not order an evaluation of Mr. DaCosta Cadogan´s mental heath during trial, nor did it allow him to obtain evidence to this effect when his attorneys so requested during the appeals process before the Caribbean Court of Justice. The representatives argued that this evidence would have allowed Mr. DaCosta Cadogan to raise a defense of diminished responsibility in his murder trial. According to the representatives, the failure of the State to provide psychiatric assessments in all mandatory death penalty cases in general, and to Mr. DaCosta Cadogan specifically, with the consent of the accused and his or her counsel, as well as the State’s failure to inform defendants of the availability of such assessments, violates Article 8(2)(c) and 8(2)(f) of the Convention. 78. The State indicated that the laws and practices of Barbados “fully compl[y] with its [obligations under the Convention] by providing free access to highly trained, professional[,] and independent psychiatrists [who are available] throughout the entire criminal prosecution process.” The State emphasized that Mr. DaCosta Cadogan chose not to seek out these services, though he “had every opportunity” to do so. It highlighted that Section 18(2)(e) of the Constitution of Barbados guarantees defendants the right to call witnesses, including expert witnesses, to testify on their behalf. The State contended that the representatives’ proposed system of “mandatory, full psychiatric assessment,” which the State could not find “anywhere in the world,” is neither “desirable [n]or necessary.” On one hand, it highlighted the wide range of safeguards already in place to prevent the criminal prosecution for murder of a person who suffers from a mental illness or other mental impairment that could negate his or her criminal liability.61 On the other, the State asserted that the representatives’ proposal would infringe various “fundamental rights of the accused.”62 Additionally, the State pointed out that the Barbados Court of Appeal and “the Caribbean Court of Justice fully considered the relevance of [the defense of diminished responsibility, and the latter] weighed the evidential value of [Dr. Mahy’s letter regarding 60 Clinical Psychology Report of Dr. Timothy Green of January 13, 2009, indicating that Mr. DaCosta Cadogan “suffers from a Personality Disorder as well as Alcohol Dependence,” and that “many of the acts that he has engaged in might have been beyond his control[,] as he is suffering from brain damage that causes him to be more impulsive than the average person” (case file of affidavits, folio 1691, para. 6.6). 61 For example: a) “[i]n a murder trial, […] the accused must be assessed by a psychiatrist for fitness to plea within 24-48 hours of being charged. Such assessment provides an opportunity to detect psychiatric illness and was provided in the case Mr. Cadogan”; b) “[i]f the accused is detained in prison while awaiting trial he will have the opportunity to see one of the psychiatrists that periodically visits the prison”; c) “[w]hen appearing before a magistrate or judge, both the defen[s]e and prosecution may request and obtain a psychiatric assessment of the accused, free of charge”; d) “if evidence before the magistrate or judge suggests the possibility of diminished responsibility or the existence of some form of psychiatric illness[,] the magistrate or judge should require a psychiatric assessment; failure to do so can provide a ground for appeal”; e) “[f]ollowing trial, if the accused has been convicted and is being detained in prison, defen[s]e counsel may request a psychiatric assessment of the individual to use in the appeal process”; f) “if at any time during incarceration following conviction a prisoner is classified as insane by a properly qualified medical officer, then provision will be made for his or her removal to the Psychiatric Hospital. Following successful treatment the prisoner will be returned to prison. If treatment is unsuccessful, the individual will remain in the Psychiatric Hospital”; g) “[a]n accused at all times has access to free psychiatric services at the Barbados Psychiatric Hospital”; h) “[t]he defen[s]e of diminished responsibility prevents a conviction for murder”; and i) “the Crown must prove its case against the accused, including the requisite level of intent, beyond a reasonable doubt.” Additionally, the State indicated that “[e]veryone in Barbados knows that there is a Psychiatric Hospital and that someone seeking treatment can obtain it for free.” 62 The State indicated that mandatory psychiatric testing would infringe the rights of an accused to: “a) liberty and security of the person; b) equality before the law; c) protection of hon[o]r, dignity, reputation[,] and private life; d) recognition as a person, having rights and obligations; e) apply to a court to ensure respect for his or her rights; f) be presumed innocent and to be tried according to law; g) a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him. Such due guarantees include the right to defend oneself, the right to be assisted by counsel of one’s own choosing, and the right to call and examine witnesses; h) have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected, and i) equal protection of the law.”