4. To make public this decision and to include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the OAS. Done and signed in the city of Washington, D.C., on the 4th day of the month of March, 2008. (Signed): Paolo G. Carozza, Chairman; Luz Patricia Mejía Guerrero, First Vice-Chairwoman; Felipe González Morales, Second Vice-Chairman; Sir Clare K. Roberts, Florentín Meléndez, Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro and Victor E. Abramovich, Commissioners. [1] The petitioner cites the Offences Against the Person Act, September 1st 1994, Ch.141, Section 2: “any person convicted of murder shall be sentenced to, and suffer, death”. Another exception is applicable to persons under the age of 18 and to pregnant women. Cf. Boyce Case, notes number 38 and 39 referring to Section 14 of the Juvenile Offenders Act and Section 2 of the Sentence of Death (Expectant Mothers) Act. [2] The petitioner cites the Offences against the Person Act, Section 4 (2). [3] The petitioner cites the Offences against the Person Act, Section 3(1). [4] The petitioner cites the Offences against the Person Act Section 4. [5] The petitioner cites the Offences against the Person Act Section 4 (1). [6] The petitioners cite in support of their contentions: “In the opinion of this Court, for “the due process of law” a defendant must be able to exercise his rights and defend his interests effectively and in full procedural equality with other defendants. It is important to recall that the judicial process is a means to ensure, insofar as possible, an equitable resolution of a difference. The body of procedures, of diverse character and generally grouped under the heading of the due process, is all calculated to serve that end. […] To accomplish its objectives, the judicial process must recognize and correct any real disadvantages that those brought before the bar might have, thus observing the principle of equality before the law and the courts and the corollary principle prohibiting discrimination.” Cf. I/A Court H.R., The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999 §117 and 119 as cited in the Report on the Access to Justice as a guarantee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights OEA/Ser.L/V/II.129, Doc. 4, 7 September 2007 § 187. Further, the principle of equality of arms also includes provisions related to the right to a fair trial since “This stipulation is drawn in part from the very nature and functions of procedural protections, which must in all instances be governed by the principle of fairness and which in their essence must be designed to protect, to ensure, or to assert the entitlement to a right or the exercise thereof. This includes recognizing and correcting any real disadvantages that persons concerned in the proceedings might have and thereby observing the principle of equality before the law and the corollary principle prohibiting discrimination of any kind.” Cf. Report on Terrorism and Human Rights OEA/Ser.L/V/II.116 Doc. 5 rev. 1 corr., 22 October 2002 § 399 as cited in Report on the Access to Justice as a guarantee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights § 189. [7] Cf. Community Legal Services Act, Section 11 (1) and 20. [8] I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C. N° 4, §135 and 136. InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, Report N° 28/96, Case N° 11.297, Juan Hernández (Guatemala), October 16, 1996, §43. [9] I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C, N° 4, §138. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report N° 28/96, Case N° 11.297, Juan Hernández (Guatemala), October 16, 1996, §45. [10] The text of the reservations made by the State of Barbados with respect to Articles 4(4), 4(5) and 8(2) (e), is the following: In respect of 4(4) the criminal code of Barbados provides for death by hanging as a penalty for murder and treason. The Government is at present reviewing the whole matter of the death penalty which is only rarely inflicted but wishes to enter a reservation on this point inasmuch as treason in certain circumstances might be regarded as a political offence and falling within the terms of section 4(4) In respect of 4(5) while the youth or old age of an offender may be matters which the Privy Council, the highest Court of Appeal, might take into account in considering whether the sentence of death should be carried out, persons of 16 years and over or over 70 years of age may be executed under Barbadian law. In respect of 8(2)(e) Barbadian law does not provide as a minimum guarantee in criminal proceeding any inalienable right to be assisted by counsel provided by the state. Legal aid is provided for certain scheduled offences such as homicide, and rape. [11] I/A Court H.R., Boyce et al. Case. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C, Nº 169, § 14. [12] I/A Court H.R., Boyce et al. Case, supra note 9 § 17 as taken from The Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights (Arts. 74 and 75). Advisory Opinion OC-2/82 of September 24, 1982. Series A No. 2, para. 35, and Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-3/83 of September 8, 1983. Series A No. 3, paras. 60-66. [13] I/A Court H.R., Boyce et al. Case, supra note 11 § 17. [14] I/A Court H.R., Boyce et al. Case, supra note 11 § 17. At para. 16: “the first paragraph of the reservation in question specifically refers to Article 4(4) of the Convention, which excluded the application of capital punishment to political offenses or related common crimes in absolute terms. In this regard, the State explicitly expressed in the text of the reservation its purpose and extent, stating that it “wishes to enter a reservation on this point inasmuch as treason in certain circumstances might be regarded as a political offence”. The second paragraph of the reservation similarly addresses the State’s particular concern over Article 4(5) of the Convention with regard to the application of capital punishment to “persons of 16 years and over or over 70 years of age”. [15] IACHR, Case 11.812, Gabriel Lastra Pedrero (Mexico), Report Nº 24/99, Annual Report 1998 § 22; I/A Court H.R., Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001, Ser. C Nº 82 (2001) § 39-42. 9