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