12 44. The representatives objected to the affidavit submitted by Mr. Frank Thornhill on the basis of its alleged irrelevance with its purported subject. The Court nevertheless admits this evidence insofar as it relates to the subject declared in the President’s Order (supra, para. 7), taking into consideration the representatives’ observations, and will assess its probative value according to the rules of sound criticism and the body of evidence in the case. 45. Having examined the evidentiary elements that have been incorporated into the present case, the Court will proceed with its analysis of the alleged violations of the American Convention in light of the facts that the Court deems proven, as well as the parties´ legal arguments. VIII VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 4(1)31 AND 4(2)32 OF THE CONVENTION 33 IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 1(1) THEREOF 46. In this chapter, the Court will address the parties’ arguments regarding whether the imposition of a mandatory death sentence to the four alleged victims violated their right to life. A. Mandatory Death Penalty 47. The Commission and the representatives alleged that the State has violated Articles 4(1), 4(2), 5(1), 5(2) and 8(1) of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, in relation to the State’s imposition of a mandatory death sentence to the four victims for the crime of murder. In particular, the Commission stated that a law which automatically assigns a penalty of death without judicial review and without consideration of the nature of the crime and the accused individual’s degree of culpability contravenes the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life, the right to humane treatment, and the right to a fair trial. The representatives specified that: contrary to Article 4(1) of the Convention that prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of life, the mandatory death penalty condemned the petitioners “without consideration of their individual humanity”; contrary to Article 4(2) of the Convention that requires the death penalty to apply only to the most serious crimes, the mandatory death penalty condemned the petitioners without a judicial determination of the mitigating or aggravating circumstances of the crime; contrary to Article 8(1) of the Convention that requires punishment to be determined by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, the law set a mandatory punishment of death for the petitioners, and contrary to Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, the mandatory punishment of death assigned to the petitioners degraded their inherent dignity as human beings. 48. Barbados refuted the Commission and the representatives’ allegations and maintained that it has not violated Articles 1, 4, 5, and 8 of the American Convention 31 In its pertinent part, Article 4 establishes that: “Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life”. 32 The relevant part of Article 4 states that: “In countries that have not abolished the death penalty, it may be imposed only for the most serious crimes and pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court and in accordance with a law establishing such punishment, enacted prior to the commission of the crime. The application of such punishment shall not be extended to crimes to which it does not presently apply”. 33 In its relevant part, Article 1 stipulates that: “The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition”.