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.