4 Lennox Boyce and Jeffrey Joseph, so as not to hinder the processing of their cases before the Inter-American system. 3. To require the State to inform the Inter-American Court, within 10 days of the notification of the […] Order, regarding the steps it has taken in fulfillment of th[e] Order. 4. To require the representatives of the beneficiary of the […] urgent measures to submit their observations on the State’s report within five days of its reception, and to require the Commission to submit its observations on the State’s report within seven days of its reception. 5. To require the State, after the submission of its first report, to continue informing the Court every two months regarding the measures it adopts with respect to Messrs. Atkins, Boyce and Joseph, and to require the representatives of the beneficiaries of the present provisional measures and the Commission to submit their observations on those State reports within four and six weeks, respectively, of the reception of such reports. […] 14. The communication of February 17, 2005, in which the State submitted a report in response to the President’s Order of February 11, 2005 and the Court’s Order of November 25, 2004. Barbados informed the Court that “the alleged victims Lennox Boyce, Jeffrey Joseph and Frederick Atkins remain incarcerated in the Glendairy Prison, in Barbados, West Indies, and have not been executed.” Furthermore, the State reiterated the terms of its December 16, 2004 letter (supra fourth “Having Regard To”). 15. The communication of February 25, 2005, in which the Commission submitted its observations on the State’s report of February 17, 2005. The Commission indicated that the Court had already ruled that a mandatory death penalty “is in violation of the American Convention”. Furthermore, it stated that “it does not appear that there are any legal obligations upon the State to execute the beneficiaries before their cases have been processed by the Inter-American System or that any delays […] would necessarily constitute a breach of the Barbados constitution.” In any event, the Commission emphasized, as it did in previous observations, that “the Court is only obliged to take cognizance of and construe the obligations of the State under the Convention”. Finally, the Commission requested the Court to maintain the provisional measures in favor of Lennox Boyce, Jeffrey Joseph and Frederick Atkins. 16. The communication of March 11, 2005, in which the representatives submitted observations on the State’s report of February 17, 2005. The representatives stated that Mr. Atkins’ death warrant was not withdrawn, but was temporarily stayed in the High Court of Barbados on February 11, 2005, pending the final determination of the constitutional motion for Messrs. Boyce and Joseph, which was before the Court of Appeal of Barbados. They furthermore emphasized that the warrants for the execution of Messrs. Atkins, Boyce and Joseph, although temporarily stayed, “remain live”. Finally, the representatives asserted that they were “gravely concerned that the State Party is actively opposing in the domestic courts the very position they have been ordered to adopt by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, namely a stay of execution until this matter has been finally determined by the Inter-American Commission and Court.”