3 Jeffrey Joseph.” Further, the representatives confirmed that these Orders “remain[…] in force pending the determination of the constitutional case challenging the reading of the execution warrants”. 7. The communication of November 2, 2004, in which the Secretariat reiterated to the State the terms of the abovementioned Order of September 17, 2004. On the instructions of the President, the Secretariat requested that the State “present [the ordered] information as soon as possible, so that the State’s cooperation in the present case may be evaluated during the Tribunal’s next Ordinary Session, to be held from November 15 to November 26, 2004.” 8. The communication of November 16, 2004, in which the Secretariat, on the instructions of the full Court, requested that the Commission and the representatives of the beneficiaries inform the Court as soon as possible whether the Conservatory Orders staying the executions of Mr. Lennox Boyce and Mr. Jeffrey Joseph remain in force and whether there have been any other developments in the said matter. 9. The communication of November 23, 2004, in which the Commission advised that it was “in the process of making inquiries about the status of the conservatory orders and about any further developments” in the present case. Furthermore, the Commission indicated that it would inform the Court as soon as such information became available. 10. As of the date of this Order the State has failed to submit the report required by the Order of September 17, 2004. CONSIDERING: 1. That Barbados has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights since November 27, 1982 and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court on June 4, 2000. 2. That Article 63(2) of the said Convention provides that [i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission. 3. That Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court stipulates that: 1. At any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, at the request of a party or on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. 2. With respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. […] 4. That Article 1(1) of the Convention imposes on States Parties the obligation to respect the rights and freedoms set out in that treaty and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of the said rights and freedoms.