17 58. In light of these facts, the Court concludes that because the Offences Against the Person Act submits all persons charged with murder to a judicial process in which the participation and degree of culpability of the accused and the individual circumstances of the crime are not considered, the application of the aforementioned law to Mr. DaCosta Cadogan violated the prohibition against the arbitrary deprivation of life and failed to limit the application of the death penalty to the most serious crimes, in contravention of Article 4(1) and 4(2) of the Convention. 59. Therefore, the Court considers that Barbados has violated Article 4(1) and 4(2) of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. DaCosta Cadogan. * * * 60. With regard to the Commission and representatives’ allegations that the mandatory death penalty in Barbados is also in violation of Article 8 of the Convention, the Court already declared, as in previous cases,40 that the strict observation of certain due process rights and procedures are essential in evaluating whether the death penalty has been imposed arbitrarily.41 Nevertheless, the Court will further address in Chapter VIII of this Judgment some of the additional issues submitted by the representatives with regard to Mr. DaCosta Cadogan´s right to a fair trial in this case. * * * 61. Furthermore, the Court considers, as in previous cases,42 that the allegations regarding a violation of Article 5 of the Convention due to the mandatory imposition of a death sentence, without due consideration of the particular circumstances of the crime and of the accused, properly fall under the framework of Article 4 of that treaty, which has already been analyzed (supra paras. 50 to 59). * * * 62. The representatives alleged, additionally, that the State violated Article 5 of the Convention because the imposition of the death penalty “on someone suffering from a mental illness” constitutes cruel and inhumane treatment (supra para. 44). With regard to this second allegation, the Tribunal considers that such an analysis requires that the Court deem proven that Mr. DaCosta Cadogan in fact suffered or suffers from a mental illness. In this regard, the Court observes that this alleged fact is precisely the subject of the controversy that will be analyzed in chapter VIII of this Judgment in relation to the alleged violation of Mr. DaCosta Cadogan´s right to a fair trial due to the refusal of the domestic courts to allow him to submit additional evidence on his mental state. Since the alleged fact on which the representatives wish to sustain the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention has not been proven, the Tribunal does not find that the international responsibility of the State has been established. 40 Cf. Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 22, para. 106, and Case of Boyce et al., supra note 20, para. 64. 41 Cf. Case of Boyce et al., supra note 20, para. 59, and The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law, supra note 24, para. 137. 42 Cf. Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 22, para. 106, and Case of Boyce et al., supra note 20, para. 64.