8 with the standards of the American Convention.” However, “while recognizing the importance of the decisions reported by the State, the Commission observe[d] that they must be codified in law and implemented in practice before they can be considered to have an effect on the resolution of the instant case. The willingness to address these matters, although important, is not sufficient to resolve the central claims raised.” In addition, “[a]s in the Boyce case, Mr. Cadogan still has no legal certainty that he will not face execution unless and until his sentence is formally commuted. In conclusion, this aspect of relief has not been resolved by Barbados.” 28. The representatives requested that the Court dismiss this preliminary objection, arguing that “while the State […] has undertaken to take steps to comply with the order of the Court in the Boyce et al. v. Barbados case [to abolish the mandatory aspect of the death penalty,] the fact is that it has not yet done so.” The representatives observed that “while the State […] is bound by the Court’s decision in Boyce et al. v. Barbados to concede that the alleged victim’s rights under the Convention have been violated by the failure to accord him the right to an individuali[z]ed sentencing hearing, [the alleged victim] is now entitled to reparation of his own for the violation of his rights.” Additionally, the representatives alleged that “in any event, the Commission is not empowered by […] the American Convention or […] the Rules of Procedure […] to withdraw the case from the Court. […] Further, the Court’s power to strike out a case under Article [56](1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court applies only where the parties to a case inform the Court of the existence of a friendly settlement, compromise, or any other occurrence likely to lead to a settlement of the dispute. Neither the alleged victim nor the Commission, as far as the alleged victim is aware, has informed the Court of any such matters.” In conclusion, the representatives submitted that the claims presented in this case are not moot, as “there is as yet no order from this Court in relation to the alleged victim with which the State of Barbados can comply.” 29. The Court observes that the Commission and the representatives alleged that the State is responsible for certain violations of the American Convention to the detriment of Mr. Cadogan that have not yet been redressed by the State, and that the State has expressed a willingness to redress them in light of the Boyce et al. case, in which this Tribunal ordered some of the reparations sought in the present case. In this regard, the Court recognizes the State’s expressed willingness to fully comply with what was ordered in the Boyce et al. Judgment and that the State is adopting measures intended to reform its laws and Constitution so that they conform to the American Convention and this Court’s jurisprudence. Accordingly, the Tribunal positively values the State’s disposition, which constitutes a significant contribution towards the reparation of the violations declared in the Boyce et al. case, which also relate to the present case. 30. Nonetheless, the Tribunal hereby reiterates that a State’s international responsibility arises immediately when it commits an act that is unlawful under international law,10 and that a willingness to domestically redress that unlawful act does not prevent either the Commission or the Court from hearing the case.11 That is, pursuant to the Preamble to the American Convention, the international protection afforded by that instrument “reinforc[es] or complement[s] the protection provided by the domestic law of the American states.” 10 Cf. Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 75. 11 Cf. Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 10, para. 75; Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No 111, para. 71, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 58.