35 C.2) Guarantees of Non-Repetition 127. In order to guarantee the non-repetition of the violations of the rights addressed in the present Judgment, the State must do the following: a) formally commute the death sentence of Mr. Huggins; b) adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the imposition of the death penalty does not contravene the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention, and in particular, that it is not imposed through mandatory sentencing; c) adopt such legislative or other measures necessary to ensure that the Constitution and laws of Barbados are brought into compliance with the American Convention, and, specifically, remove the immunizing effect of section 26 of the Constitution of Barbados on its “existing laws”, and d) adopt and implement such measures necessary to ensure that the conditions of detention in which the victims in this case are held comply with requirements of the American Convention. 128. The State must commute Mr. Huggins’ sentence within six months from the date of notification of the present Judgment, and it must comply with the remaining obligations mentioned in the preceding paragraph within a reasonable time from such notification. 129. The Court had ordered the State to adopt provisional measures on behalf of all four victims for the purpose of preserving their “lives and physical integrity […] so as not to hinder the processing of their cases before the Inter-American system” (supra, paras. 3133). Since their cases have now reached this Tribunal, which has already analyzed violations of the American Convention by Barbados to their detriment in accordance with its contentious jurisdiction, the Court considers that the purpose of the provisional measures has been met. In light of the above, and further considering that Mr. Atkins passed away in 2005, that Messrs. Boyce and Joseph’s death sentences have been commuted to life in prison, and that the Court has ordered the State to formally commute the death sentence of Mr. Huggins, this Court hereby lifts the provisional measures ordered on behalf of all of the victims. Accordingly, the Tribunal considers that the State’s obligations within the framework of these procedural measures are superseded by those that are ordered in the present Judgment as of the date of its notification.137 137 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 196, and Case of Raxcacó Reyes, supra note 37, operative paragraph 15.