30 to effectively pursue any further rights they may have”.116 109. Similarly, this Tribunal considers that the first reading of the warrants of execution to Messrs. Boyce and Joseph violated their right to personal integrity, recognized in Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. The Court further observes that said violation has already been addressed by the Barbados Court of Appeals with a favorable result to the alleged victims, whose death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment. 110. Subsequently, the State filed an appeal with the Caribbean Court of Justice117 (hereinafter “CCJ”) against the decision of the Barbados Court of Appeals. This Tribunal observes that the Commission filed the application in the present case on June 23, 2006, before the CCJ had issued a final decision on the issue of the reading of warrants of execution. On November 8, 2006, the CCJ dismissed the State’s appeal and, inter alia, upheld the commutation of the sentences of both Mr. Joseph and Mr. Boyce, and did not provide them with any additional compensation or other remedies.118 Furthermore, the CCJ held that Messrs. Boyce and Joseph had a “legitimate expectation” not to be executed - and thus not be read warrants of execution - before their international human rights petition procedures were completed, within a “reasonable time”.119 111. In this sense, the Court also considers that the second reading of the warrants of execution to Messrs. Boyce and Joseph violated their right to personal integrity, in accordance with Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of said instrument. Likewise, the Court observes that the damage caused by the violation of the right to personal integrity of Messrs. Boyce and Joseph has already been addressed and resolved domestically in their favor, resulting in the commutation of their sentences. 112. Nevertheless, the Court will address the issue of whether the State must await for the completion of proceedings before the Inter-American System before it may carry out a death sentence. The State argues that the aforementioned “legitimate expectation” was not part of Barbados’ law until the CCJ’s ruling of November 8, 2006. The Court disagrees with the State’s reading of the CCJ’s decision. Contrary to the State’s assertion, the CCJ’s decision recognized the binding nature of the decisions of the JCPC on Barbados, “until and unless they are overruled” by the CCJ.120 Accordingly, the JCPC’s decision in the Lewis121 case, which held that executions in Jamaica could not be carried out where a decision is pending before an international human rights body, was binding as to Barbados at the time the alleged victims were read their death warrants. Nevertheless, the CCJ’s decision limited 116 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Barbados Court of Appeal in Jeffrey Joseph and Lennox Ricardo Boyce v. The Attorney-General et al., supra note 13, paras. 82 and 84, (folios 976-978). 117 On April 16, 2005, the Caribbean Court of Justice substituted the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the highest court for the English-speaking Caribbean countries that have recognized its jurisdiction. 118 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Caribbean Court of Justice in The Attorney General et al. v. Jeffrey Joseph and Lennox Ricardo Boyce, supra note 14, para. 133, (folio 3231). 119 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Caribbean Court of Justice in The Attorney General et al. v. Jeffrey Joseph and Lennox Ricardo Boyce, (holding that “the BPC ought not to have decided to advise the Governor-General to proceed with the executions before allowing the respondents a reasonable time to complete the processing of their petitions. In giving this advise without waiting a reasonable time for the Commission’s report, the BPC defeated the legitimate expectation of the respondents and deprived itself of any opportunity of considering the Commission’s report or if the matter was referred to the Inter-American Court, that Court’s judgment. The reading of the death warrants on the 15th September 2004 constituted an infringement of the respondent’s right to the protection of the law”), supra note 14, para. 128, (folio 3229). 120 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Caribbean Court of Justice in The Attorney General et al. v. Jeffrey Joseph and Lennox Ricardo Boyce, supra note 14, para. 18, (folio 3180). 121 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Neville Lewis v. Attorney General of Jamaica, supra note 113).