28 clearly incompatible with the respect due to the dignity of every human being.112 102. The Court thus concludes that the conditions in which these three alleged victims have been and continue to be detained, in particular in relation to the lack of privacy, contact with the outside world, and exercise, as well as being kept in cages and forced to use slop buckets in plain view of others, amount to inhuman and degrading treatment and fail to respect the human dignity of the person, in contravention to Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, to the detriment of Messrs. Boyce, Joseph, Atkins and Huggins. C. Reading of Warrants of Execution 103. Warrants of execution were read to all four alleged victims on two separate occasions informing them that they would be executed within seven days from such notice. The first reading of the warrants of executions allegedly occurred while their domestic appeals were pending. The second reading of the warrants of execution allegedly occurred while their petition before the Inter-American Commission was pending. Although none of the executions were carried out, the Commission argued that the alleged reading of warrants of execution to each of the victims on these two separate occasions prior to the completion of all their appeals and during the proceedings before the Inter-American System constituted a violation of Article 5(1) and 5(2) in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention. The Commission considered essential that “litigants be able to complete their appeals at the national level, as well as [the] petition processes before [the Commission] before any execution could be carried out”. 104. The representatives also argued that the two alleged attempts by the State to execute all four alleged victims whilst lawful domestic appeals and a petition to the InterAmerican Commission were pending contravened their right to an appeal and not to be arbitrarily deprived of life, and was a cruel treatment that resulted in a violation of Articles 4(1), 4(2), 5(1), 5(2) and 8(2) of the American Convention in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the same. The representatives alleged that the first warrants were read even though the alleged victims had notified the authorities of their intention to file an appeal with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (hereinafter “JCPC”), and that they had asked the Barbados Privy Council (Mercy Committee) to consider their commutations only after the determination of the intended appeal. Furthermore, the representatives alleged that they reasonably relied on a communication by the State of Barbados’ London Solicitors by which Messrs. Boyce and Joseph were informed they had until July 26, 2002 to lodge a petition before the JCPC, and that the petition was in fact submitted prior to that date. The representatives considered that it was “manifestly unfair” to have read the warrants of execution to Messrs. Boyce and Joseph under those circumstances. With regards to the reading of the second warrant of execution, the representatives mentioned that both the Barbados Court of Appeals and the Caribbean Court of Justice have ruled that the Mercy Committee should have awaited the conclusion of their petition before the Inter-American System before considering the commutation of the death sentences. 105. The State considered that the reading of warrants of execution constitutes part of the State’s obligations to carry out executions in a timely manner so as not to cause cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment to those on death row. Furthermore, the State asserted that the appeals of Messrs. Joseph and Boyce to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council were filed on July 25, 2002, nearly one month after the death warrants were read to the 112 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo, supra note 108, para. 58; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 84, para. 154; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 24, para. 315, and Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, supra note 108, para. 221.