29 B(i) Judgment as a form of reparation 100. First, the Court considers that the present Judgment per se is a form of reparation87 that should be understood as a measure of satisfaction that recognizes that the rights of Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan addressed in the present Judgment have been violated by the State. B(ii) Legislative Reform 101. The Commission requested that the Court order the State to “adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the death penalty is not imposed [in Barbados] in contravention of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention […], and to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that [Section 26 of] the Constitution and [Section 2 of] the Offences Against the Person Act of Barbados confor[m] with Article 2 [of the Convention].” The Commission further indicated that while it “welcomed” the efforts of the State to comply with the judgment of the Court in the Boyce et al. case and recognized the importance of the decisions it had reported, the State’s commitments “must be codified in law and implemented in practice before they can be considered to have an effect on the resolution” of this case. 102. The representatives also requested “[a] direction that the State […] adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the death penalty is not imposed in a manner inconsistent with the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention, and in particular, that it is not imposed through mandatory sentencing,” and that “the domestic courts have full jurisdiction to uphold fundamental [c]onstitutional rights.” To that end, the representatives argued that the “immunizing effect of [S]ection 26 of the Constitution of Barbados in respect of ‘existing laws’” should be removed. Furthermore, the representatives requested that the Court order the State to adopt “such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure [that] indigent persons charged with murder are provided with adequate facilities for the conduct of psychiatric/psychological examinations in every case, in compliance with the requirements of the American Convention, including the right to a fair trial under Article 8 and the right to humane treatment under Article 5 of the Convention.” Specifically, the representatives proposed the “establishment of a protocol whereby: i) the State […] would inform the accused and his [c]ounsel of the availability of psychiatric assessments, either by a state employed psychiatrist, or, in appropriate circumstances, by a psychiatrist in private practice funded by the State[,] and of his right to be so examined if he chose to do so; ii) efforts [would be] made by the State to fix appointments for such assessments to take place; and iii) in planning for the trial of a murder case the trial judge [would] make enquiries as to whether a psychiatric assessment has been carried out.” 103. For its part, the State indicated that, in compliance with the order of this Court in the Boyce et al. case, it “is undertaking the necessary legislative and other measures to safeguard against any imposition of the death penalty not in conformity with […] the American Convention” and to bring its laws into compliance thereof. In particular, the State expressed its intention to remove the immunizing effect of Section 26 of the Constitution of Barbados in respect of “existing laws.” However, it also declared that the laws and practices of Barbados “fully compl[y] with its [obligations under the Convention] by providing free 87 Cf. Case of Neira-Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 57; Case of Escher et al., supra note 6, para. 233, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra note 6, para. 133.