2 the State had not adopted its recommendations, the Commission decided on June 16, 2006 to submit this case to the jurisdiction of the Court.2 2. In the application, the Commission alleged that the State is responsible for the violations committed against Lennox Ricardo Boyce, Jeffrey Joseph, Frederick Benjamin Atkins and Michael McDonald Huggins (hereinafter “the alleged victims”), by the mandatory nature of the death penalty imposed upon the alleged victims for their murder convictions, the conditions of their detention, the reading of warrants of execution while their complaints were allegedly pending before domestic courts and the Inter-American Human Rights System, and the alleged failure to bring the domestic legislation of Barbados into compliance with its obligations under the American Convention. All four alleged victims were sentenced to death pursuant to Section 2 of Barbados’ Offences Against the Person Act of 1994, which imposes a mandatory sentence of death for persons convicted for the crime of murder. 3. The Commission asked the Court to determine the international responsibility of the State for the violation of Articles 4(1) and 4(2) (Right to Life), 5(1) and 5(2) (Right to Humane Treatment), and 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial) of the Convention, as well as Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the same instrument. Furthermore, the Commission requested that the Court order the State to adopt non-monetary measures of reparation. 4. The representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin (hereinafter “the representatives”), Mr. Saul Lehrfreund and Mr. Parvais Jabbar, submitted their written brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “representatives’ brief”), in accordance with Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure. Based on the facts described by the Commission in its application, the representatives asked the Court to declare the same violations requested by the Commission, and further added that “[t]he method of execution of death by hanging violates Articles 5(2) and 5(1) [of the Convention] in conjunction with Article 1 [thereof]”, and that the reading of warrants of execution while their complaints were allegedly pending also violated Articles 4(1), 4(2), 5(1), 5(2) and 8(2) of the Convention. Moreover, they requested certain non-monetary measures of reparation and the reimbursement of certain expenses incurred in processing the case before this Court. 5. The State submitted its brief containing the answer to the application and observations to the representatives’ brief (hereinafter “answer to the application”), in which it submitted one preliminary objection, namely the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, and “request[ed] that [the] Court expressly deny all the claims and requests of the Petitioners [and] the Commission[, and] declare that Barbados’ laws and practices are compatible with its obligations under the Inter-American [S]ystem of [H]uman [R]ights”. More specifically, the State alleged that its application of mandatory capital punishment is lawful, as it is neither expressly nor implicitly prohibited in the Convention in accordance with accepted international methods of treaty interpretation. The State asserted that a wide to the principle that mandatory death penalty is unconstitutional, and Article 8, relating to the fact that a mandatory death penalty precludes the consideration of the individual circumstances of each case. In addition, the Commission made some recommendations to the State of Barbados. Cf. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report Nº 03/06, Merits. Case 12.480. Lennox Boyce, Jeffrey Joseph, Frederick Benjamin Atkins and Michael Huggins. Barbados. February 28, 2006 (case file of appendices to the application, volume IV, appendix E.1, folios 1597-1623). 2 The Commission appointed Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, Commissioner, and Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary, as delegates, and Ariel E. Dulitzky, Víctor Madrigal Borloz, Brian Tittemore and Manuela Cuvi Rodriguez as legal advisers.