8 rendering it necessary to avoid irreparable damage to the rights to life and physical integrity of Frederick Atkins and Michael Huggins. 8. 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 Convention3. 9. In this case the measures mandated are designed to allow the organs of the Inter-American system of human rights protection to evaluate the possible existence of a violation of Articles 2, 4, 5 and 8 of the American Convention. 10. The case under consideration is not before the Court, and the adoption of provisional measures, whose purpose in international human rights law is to protect fundamental human rights by seeking to avoid irreparable damage to persons, does not imply a decision on the merits of the controversy between the petitioners and the State. Upon ordering such measures, the Tribunal is ensuring only that it may faithfully exercise its mandate pursuant to the Convention in cases of extreme gravity and urgency4. 11. The Court is aware, as a result of the information provided by the State, the Commission, and the representatives, that Michael Huggins, Frederick Atkins, Lennox Boyce and Jeffrey Joseph have not yet been executed. Furthermore, on May 31, 2005, the Court of Appeal of Barbados commuted the death sentences of Messrs. Boyce and Joseph. However, the Commission indicated that the State is considering an appeal of said decision to the Caribbean Court of Justice, which possibly could restore the original death sentences. Moreover, Messrs. Huggins, Atkins, Boyce and Joseph remain incarcerated in Barbados and the State has asserted that it “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”. 12. In due consideration of the above, the Court decides that the measures mandated by the President’s Orders of February 11 and May 20, 2005 (supra thirteenth and twenty-first “Having Regard To”) must be maintained, and for this reason ratifies said Orders in all of their terms. 3 Cf. Case of Boyce and Joseph. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2004, ninth “Whereas”; Case of Raxcacó et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2004, ninth “Whereas”; and Case of James et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 26, 2001, twelfth “Whereas”. 4 Cf. Case of Boyce and Joseph. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2004, tenth “Whereas”; Case of Raxcacó et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2004, eleventh “Whereas”; and Case of Carlos Nieto et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 9, 2004, tenth “Whereas”.