35 detriment of Mr. DaCosta Cadogan, the Court considers that the purpose of the provisional measures has been met. In light of the foregoing, this Court hereby lifts the provisional measures ordered on his behalf. Accordingly, the Tribunal considers that the State’s obligations within the framework of these provisional measures, particularly the obligation to refrain from executing Mr. DaCosta Cadogan, are superseded by those that are ordered in the present Judgment as of the date of its notification.95 128. Therefore, XI OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS THE COURT DECIDES, unanimously, 1. To dismiss the preliminary objections submitted by the State, in accordance with paragraphs 20, 25, and 30 of the present Judgment. 2. To lift the provisional measures ordered in favor of Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan, as the obligations of the State within the framework of those provisional measures are hereby superseded by those ordered in the present Judgment, in accordance with paragraph 127 hereof. DECLARES, unanimously, that: 3. The State violated, to the detriment of Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan, the rights recognized in Article 4(1) and 4(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, in accordance with paragraphs 46 to 59 of this Judgment. 4. The State is not responsible for the violation of Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in accordance with paragraph 62 of this Judgment. 5. The State failed to comply with Article 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Articles 1(1), 4(1), 4(2), and 25(1) thereof, in accordance with paragraphs 68 to 75 of this Judgment. 6. The State violated, to the detriment of Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan, the rights recognized under Article 8(1), 8(2)(c), and 8(2)(f) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) and 4(1) thereof, in accordance with paragraphs 79 to 90 of this Judgment. 95 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 196; Case of Boyce et al., supra note 20, para. 129, and Case of RaxcacóReyes, supra note 22, operative paragraph 15.