Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados Judgment of November 20, 2007 (Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs) In the Case of Boyce et al, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court”, “the Court”, or “the Tribunal”), composed of the following judges: Sergio García-Ramírez, President; Cecilia Medina-Quiroga, Vice-President; Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, Judge; Diego García-Sayán, Judge; Leonardo A. Franco, Judge; Margarette May Macaulay, Judge, and Rhadys Abreu-Blondet, Judge; also present, Pablo Saavedra-Alessandri, Registrar, and Emilia Segares-Rodríguez, Deputy Registrar, pursuant to Articles 62(3) and 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) and Articles 29, 31, 37, 56 and 58 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”), delivers the present Judgment. I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND SUBJECT OF THE DISPUTE 1. On June 23, 2006, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 50 and 61 of the American Convention, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) submitted to the Court an application against the State of Barbados (hereinafter “the State” or “Barbados”). The application originated from petition No. 12.480 presented to the Secretariat of the Commission on September 3, 2004 by Messrs. Saul Lehrfreund and Parvais Jabbar of the law firm of Simons Muirhead & Burton, located in London, United Kingdom. On February 28, 2006, the Commission adopted the admissibility and merits report No. 03/06, pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention1, in which it made certain recommendations to the State. Considering that 1 In the report, the Commission concluded that the State was responsible for the violation of Articles 4(1), 4(2), 5(1), 5(2) and 8(1) of the Convention, relating to the mandatory nature of the death penalty imposed upon the alleged victims; Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, relating to the alleged victims' conditions of detention and the method of execution in Barbados; Articles 1, 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, relating to having the writ of hanging read to the alleged victims and in the case of Messrs. Boyce and Joseph on more than one occasion; Article 2, relating to the savings clause, and the fact that it prevents Barbados' domestic courts from giving effect

Select target paragraph3