6 Caribbean Court of Justice on November 8, 2006.14 Finally, the State asserted that Mr. Huggins’ “death sentence may not be lawfully carried out as a result of the expiry of a period of over five years from the date of his conviction, as required by the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Pratt v. Attorney-General of Jamaica, as applied to Barbados in Bradshaw v. Attorney-General of Barbados”.15 19. Although the parties agree that three of the alleged victims are no longer subject to execution, a controversy exists over the possibility that the fourth alleged victim, Mr. Huggins, could still face judicial hanging. Mr. Huggins was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging on July 19, 2001.16 The State argues that, because more than five years have passed since his conviction, the Pratt rule applies and prohibits the State from legally executing him.17 The Commission and the representatives argue that until his sentence is officially commuted, the possibility of his execution remains. 20. In this regard, the Court observes that Mr. Huggins’ death sentence has not been formally commuted. Furthermore, the Court has no way to confirm, nor will it assume, that the Barbados Privy Council, which is the entity of the executive branch charged with recommending commutations of death sentences, will choose to follow the judicial precedent established in Pratt and Bradshaw and commute Mr. Huggins’ sentence. There is always the possibility that an attempt may be made to challenge the applicability of the time limit for carrying out the death penalty established in Pratt to Mr. Huggins. Thus, the Court considers that Mr. Huggins has no legal certainty that he will not face execution unless and until his sentence is formally commuted. 21. Nevertheless, even assuming that none of the four alleged victims will be hanged, the Court considers that the State’s arguments regarding the alleged mootness of the issues of mandatory death sentencing and hanging are misplaced. More specifically, the State misunderstands the moment in time in which the alleged violations would have occurred in the present case. The premise for the State’s position seems to be that the mandatory death penalty and death by hanging may only give rise to a possible violation of the American Convention if and when the alleged victims are actually executed; that is, when the sentence is carried out. Without addressing the merits of the issues at this point, the Court considers that the alleged violations with regard to the issue of mandatory death penalty in this case would have occurred at the sentencing stage, when the alleged victims were sentenced to death by hanging pursuant to laws that allegedly contravene the American Convention (infra, paras. 51-80). 22. 14 Additionally, even if none of the alleged victims were to face the death penalty, the Cf. Judgment delivered by the Caribbean Court of Justice in The Attorney General et al. v. Jeffrey Joseph and Lennox Ricardo Boyce, CCJ Appeal No CV 2 of 2005, BB Civil Appeal No 29 of 2004 (November 8, 2006) (case file of appendices to the answer to the application, volume II, appendix 32, folios 3172-3348). 15 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Pratt and Morgan v. Attorney General for Jamaica et al. (November 2, 1993) (case file of appendices to the answer to the application, volume IV, appendix 76, folios 5158-5184), and Judgment delivered by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Bradshaw v. Attorney General of Barbados et al. (May 24, 1995) (case file of appendices to the answer to the application, volume II, appendix 37, folios 3471-3478). 16 Cf. Michael McDonald Huggins v. The Queen, Record of proceedings (case file of appendices to the application, volume III, appendix B.9, folios 1475-1476). 17 The decision in Pratt and Morgan v. Attorney General for Jamaica imposed a five-year deadline to carry out death sentences in order to ensure timely executions (“Pratt rule”). The decision in Pratt was extended to Barbados by the decision in Bradshaw, requiring the Barbadian Privy Council to follow the same time requirements for the implementation of death sentences. Cf. Judgment delivered by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Pratt and Morgan v. Attorney General for Jamaica et al., supra note 15, and Judgment delivered by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Bradshaw v. Attorney General of Barbados et al., supra note 15.