ORDER OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF JUNE 14, 2005 EXPANSION OF PROVISIONAL MEASURES REQUESTED BY THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS REGARDING THE STATE OF BARBADOS CASE OF BOYCE ET AL. VS. BARBADOS HAVING REGARD TO: 1. The Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court”, “the Court” or “the Tribunal”) of September 17, 2004 regarding the State of Barbados (hereinafter “the State” or “Barbados”), in which the President required the State, inter alia, “to adopt, without delay, all of the necessary measures to preserve the life and physical integrity of Lennox Boyce and Jeffrey Joseph, so as not to hinder the processing of their cases before the InterAmerican system.” 2. The Order of the Inter-American Court of November 25, 2004, in which the Tribunal decided, inter alia, “[t]o ratify the President’s Order of September 17, 2004 […] and to require the State to adopt without delay all necessary measures to comply with that Order.” 3. The communication of December 3, 2004, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) advised that “the conservatory orders of the Barbadian courts remain in force”, staying the executions of Messrs. Boyce and Joseph while their constitutional challenge was resolved before the High Court of Barbados. 4. The communication of December 16, 2004, in which Barbados submitted a report in response to the Court’s Order of November 25, 2004. The State informed the Court, inter alia, that “the alleged victims Lennox Boyce and Jeffrey Joseph remain incarcerated in the Glendairy Prision, in Barbados, West Indies, and have not been executed.” Furthermore, Barbados stated that “she is not averse to receiving a decision from the Court regarding the compatibility of her laws with the InterAmerican system of human rights”; however, “she cannot delay the execution of the sentences of the Petitioners beyond the time period specifically provided for in the case of Pratt v. Attorney-General for Jamaica […] and all other subsequent relevant decisions such as to cause a breach of the Constitution of Barbados.” 5. The communication of December 20, 2004, in which the representatives of the beneficiaries of the present measures (hereinafter “the representatives”) confirmed that the aforementioned conservatory orders staying the executions of Messrs. Boyce and Joseph remained in force, “pending the determination of the constitutional case of Lennox Boyce and Jeffrey Joseph v. The Attorney General and Others”. According to the representatives, at the conclusion of a November 15, 2004

Select target paragraph3