22 interpretation thereof made by the Inter-American Court, which is the ultimate interpreter of the American Convention.76 79. Accordingly, the Court has found on previous occasions that a similar “savings clause” found in the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago had the effect of protecting from judicial scrutiny certain laws that would otherwise breach fundamental rights.77 Similarly, in the present case, section 26 of the Constitution of Barbados effectively denies its citizens in general, and the alleged victims in particular, the right to seek judicial protection against violations of their right to life. 80. Accordingly, in light of the Court’s jurisprudence, and to the extent that section 26 of the Constitution of Barbados prevents judicial scrutiny over section 2 of the Offences Against the Person Act, which in turn violates the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life, the Court finds that the State has failed to abide by its obligations under Article 2 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1), 4(1), 4(2) and 25(1) of such instrument. X VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 5(1)78 AND 5(2)79 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 1(1) THEREOF 81. In this chapter the Court will address the parties’ arguments regarding the following three issues: 1) whether the method of judicial execution by hanging in Barbados violates the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment, 2) whether the conditions of detention of the four alleged victims violated their right to personal integrity, and 3) whether the State further violated the alleged victims´ rights to life and personal integrity by allegedly reading warrants of executions to them while their appeals were pending. A. Method of Execution of Death by Hanging 82. The representatives alleged that the execution of a death sentence by hanging as provided by Barbados law constitutes cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment in violation of Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention “as it exposes the condemned man to prolonged and unnecessary suffering, there is a risk of a long drawn out, extremely painful and possibly gruesome death due to the possibility of death by strangulation or full or partial decapitation”. The representatives contended that although none of the alleged victims have been hanged, the violation of their right not to be subjected to cruel and inhuman punishment was violated at the moment the death warrants were read to them. As for Mr. Huggins, the representatives allege that he still faces death by hanging, as his sentence of death has not been commuted. 83. The Inter-American Commission did not allege a violation of the Convention based on the method of execution in use in Barbados, namely death by hanging. However, it is now well established in the Tribunal’s jurisprudence that once the Commission has initiated 76 Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 18, para. 124. Cf. also Case of La Cantuta, supra note 64, para. 173. 77 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al., supra note 42, para. 152(c), and Case of Caesar V. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C No. 123, paras. 115117. 78 In its relevant part, Article 5 stipulates that: “Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected”. 79 Article 5 establishes in the pertinent part that: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person”.