2 hearing, a justice of the High Court of Barbados reserved judgment, which delayed a decision from being reached. 6. The communication of December 21, 2004, in which the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”), following the instructions of the President, respectfully reminded the State of the provisions of the Court’s Order of November 25, 2004, which held, inter alia, that “if the State were to execute the alleged victims, this would lead to an irreparable situation, as well as constitute conduct incompatible with the object and purpose of the [American] Convention [on Human Rights].” The Secretariat further observed that, pursuant to the terms of said Order, “States are required to comply in good faith with their treaty obligations (pacta sunt servanda),” and “[provisional] measures ordered by […] this Tribunal by virtue of the provisions of Article 63(2) of the Convention have an obligatory character.” 7. The communication of January 12, 2005, in which the representatives submitted observations on the report of the State, in response to the Court’s Order of November 25, 2004. In said observations, the representatives remarked that “to execute the Petitioners whilst their applications are pending before the InterAmerican Human Rights System would constitute conduct incompatible with the object and purpose of the American Convention […] and contrary to domestic law.” With regard to domestic law in Barbados, the representatives argued that, in light of relevant precedents, “the domestic courts must […] intervene by way of [a] Conservatory Order in support of precautionary and provisional measures pending the consideration of individual cases, until the final resolution of those cases has been made known.” 8. The communication of January 21, 2005, in which the Inter-American Commission submitted observations on the report of the State, in response to the Court’s Order of November 25, 2004. In said observations, the Commission stated that “the Court is only obliged to take cognizance of and construe the obligations of the State under the [American] Convention, wh[ose] obligations cannot be superseded or displaced by the State’s domestic laws or interpretations thereof.” Furthermore, the Commission requested the Court to maintain the present provisional measures. 9. The communication of February 10, 2005, in which the representatives submitted to the Secretariat a copy of the letter sent to Inter-American Commission, which requested “that the Commission seek an Order for Provisional Measures from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights” with regard to Frederick Atkins. 10. The communication of February 11, 2005, in which the Inter-American Commission submitted to the Court, pursuant to Articles 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention”) and 25 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”), a request that the Court “amplify the provisional measures adopted in the matter of Boyce and Joseph” in favor of Frederick Atkins, with the objective that “Barbados takes all measures necessary to preserve the life and physical integrity of Mr. Atkins so as not to hinder the processing of his case before the Inter-American system.” 11. The request of the Commission, which was based upon the following arguments and alleged facts submitted by the petitioners: