25 the same conditions as the State, with the purpose of defending themselves.72 In any case, the Convention does not impede States from adopting additional measures than those recognized under Article 8(2) of the Convention in order to guarantee a fair trial. 85. In analyzing whether the State respected and ensured Mr. DaCosta’s due process rights, the Court recalls that this obligation is most broad and demanding in those processes in which a penalty of death may be imposed.73 This is so because such a penalty entails the deprivation of the most fundamental of rights,74 the right to life, with the consequent impossibility of reversing the penalty once it has been carried out. Otherwise, a violation of the due process rights of a defendant in a capital case, such as the failure to provide him or her with reasonable and adequate means for his or her defense, in light of Articles 8(2)(c) and 8(2)(f) of the Convention, may result in an arbitrary deprivation of the right to life recognized under Article 4 thereof (supra paras. 55 to 59). The failure to guarantee these rights in a death penalty case could undoubtedly result in a grave and irreversible miscarriage of justice, with the possible outcome being the execution of a person who was not given a fair trial. Accordingly, this Tribunal has stated on multiple occasions that the object and purpose of the Convention, as an instrument for the protection of the human person, requires that the right to life be interpreted and applied in such a manner that its safeguards become practical and effective (effet utile).75 Therefore, this analysis – regarding the due process rights that the State should have guaranteed to Mr. DaCosta Cadogan – must be done in light of the ample protections that correspond to the right to life. 86. With these criteria in mind, this Tribunal observes that Mr. DaCosta Cadogan’s mental health was never fully evaluated during his trial even though evidence was submitted that indicated that he had been drinking an excessive amount of alcohol the day of the murder and that he had the intention of carrying out a robbery in order to obtain money to purchase more alcohol.76 The Court observes that the supposed mental illnesses that the representatives alleged Mr. DaCosta Cadogan suffered or suffers are alcohol dependence and anti-social personality disorder, which could have allowed Mr. DaCosta Cadogan to raise a defense of diminished responsibility (supra paras. 77 and 81). The absence of such an evaluation was due to the failure of both Mr. DaCosta Cadogan’s defense attorney and the trial judge to request it, even though the judge instructed the jury to determine Mr. DaCosta Cadogan´s mental state at the time of the offense. On this point, the judge indicated to the jury that it had to determine “whether […] the actions of the accused described in this case are those of a man who has no control over his actions or is 72 Cf. Case of Castillo-Petruzzi et al., supra note 50, para. 154; Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 152, and Case of Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 179. 73 Cf. Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty, E.S.C. res. 1984/50, annex, 1984 U.N. ESCOR Supp. (No. 1) at 33, U.N. Doc. E/1984/84 (1984); para. 4 and 5, available at http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/i8sgpr.htm. 74 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.), supra note 9, para. 144; Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C No. 171, para. 117, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 120. 75 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 56, and Case of La Cantuta, supra note 52, para. 171. See also Eur.C.H.R., McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A No. 324, paras. 146-147. 76 Cf. The Queen v. Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan (May 18, 2005), Supreme Court of Barbados (Criminal Division) - Record of the proceedings (1-226) (case file of appendices to the application, volume II, annex B1, folio 941).