14 crime of murder.39 The dispute lies as to whether the imposition of a mandatory sentence of death is contrary to the American Convention.40 50. In interpreting the issue of death penalty in general, the Court has observed that Article 4(2) of the Convention allows for the deprivation of the right to life by the imposition of the death penalty in those countries that have not abolished it. That is, capital punishment is not per se incompatible with or prohibited by the American Convention. However, the Convention has set a number of strict limitations to the imposition of capital punishment.41 First, the imposition of the death penalty must be limited to the most serious common crimes not related to political offenses.42 Second, the sentence must be individualized in conformity with the characteristics of the crime, as well as the participation and degree of culpability of the accused.43 Finally, the imposition of this sanction is subject to certain procedural guarantees, and compliance with them must be strictly observed and reviewed.44 51. Specifically, in addressing the issue of mandatory death sentencing in other cases, the Court has held that the reference to “arbitrary” in Article 4(1) of the Convention and the reference to “the most serious crimes” in Article 4(2) render the imposition of mandatory death sentences incompatible with such provisions where the same penalty is imposed for conduct that can be vastly different, and where it is not restricted to the most serious crimes.45 52. 39 The provisions of the Convention regarding the imposition of the death penalty must The only exceptions to this rule include cases where the convicted person is less than 18 years of age or is a pregnant woman. Cf. Section 14 of the Juvenile Offenders Act (case file of appendices to the answer to the application, volume I, appendix 22, folio 2973) and Section 2 of the Sentence of Death (Expectant Mothers) Act (case file of appendices to the answer to the application, volume I, appendix 27, folio 3087). 40 The State has repeatedly affirmed throughout this case that “the people of Barbados strongly believe in the effectiveness and validity of the death penalty as a criminal deterrent. The current Government was elected in part on the explicit platform of enforcing the death penalty. It was elected to uphold not just any form of the death penalty, but rather the current, mandatory form of capital punishment.” lt emphasized that even if no death sentence has been carried out in Barbados since 1984, there is still very strong public support for mandatory capital punishment as a criminal deterrent. In this regard, the Court is aware of the information presented by the State providing evidence on the public opinion’s support for the death penalty in Barbados. However, pursuant to Articles 62 of the Convention and 1 of the Court’s Statute, the main purpose of this Tribunal, as a judicial institution, is “the application and interpretation of the American Convention on Human Rights.” The State of Barbados ratified the American Convention on November 27, 1982 and recognized the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on June 4, 2000 (supra, para. 30). Accordingly, pursuant to its duty to resolve cases properly brought before it, the Court must analyze whether Barbados’ system of capital punishment comports with the legal obligations the State has undertaken under the American Convention, in light of this Tribunal’s jurisprudence. In this way, the Court, as the final interpreter of the Convention, ensures that its effet utile is not reduced or annulled by the application of laws which, however popular they may be, are contrary to the Convention’s provisions, object and purpose. Cf. Case of Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Perú. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 128. 41 Cf. Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 7. 42 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. V. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 106, and Case of Raxcacó Reyes, supra note 37, para. 68. See also Restrictions to the death penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 7, para. 55. 43 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al., supra note 42, paras. 103, 106 and 108, and Case of Raxcacó Reyes, supra note 37, para. 81. See also Restrictions to the death penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 7, para. 55. 44 Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 37, para. 79. See also Restrictions to the death penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 7, para. 55, and The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, para. 135. 45 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al., supra note 42, paras. 103, 106 and 108, and Case of Raxcacó Reyes, supra note 37, paras. 81 and 82.