8 28. The evidence before the Court does not support the State’s contention. The Commission requested observations from the State regarding the admissibility and merits of the petition on three occasions. Nevertheless, in its first submission before the Commission the State did not specify the domestic remedies that remained to be exhausted in the case of Messrs. Huggins and Atkins, or demonstrate that these remedies were applicable and effective. Such was the finding of the Commission, which concluded in its report on admissibility and merits that “the State implicitly or tacitly waived any challenge with regard to the exhaustion of remedies by the alleged victims in domestic proceedings” due to the “absence of any observations from the State regarding precisely which domestic remedies have not been exhausted by Messrs. Huggins and Atkins, and considering the fact that the State has provided no observations regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies in the case of Messrs. Boyce and Joseph”. 29. Thus, in keeping with the procedural requirements described above (supra, para. 25), the State implicitly waived a line of defense that the American Convention extends in its favor.19 Therefore, the preliminary objection pled by the State is hereby dismissed. V JURISDICTION OF THE COURT 30. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction over this case in accordance with Article 62(3) of the Convention. The State of Barbados ratified the American Convention on Human Rights on November 27, 1982 and recognized the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on June 4, 2000. VI PROVISIONAL MEASURES 31. On September 17, 2004, the Inter-American Commission submitted to the Court, in accordance with Articles 63(2) of the Convention and 25 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, a request for the adoption of provisional measures in favor of Messrs. Lennox Boyce and Jeffrey Joseph, who were sentenced to death in Barbados, in order that “Barbados take all measures necessary to preserve the lives and physical integrity of these alleged victims so as not to hinder the processing of their cases before the Inter-American system.” That same day, the President issued an Order requiring the State to adopt such provisional measures.20 On November 25, 2004, the Tribunal decided “[t]o ratify the President’s Order of September 17, 2004 […] and to require the State to adopt without delay all necessary measures to comply with that Order.”21 32. On February 11 and May 19, 2005, respectively, the Commission requested that the Court “amplify the provisional measures adopted in the matter of Boyce and Joseph” to include Messrs. Frederick Atkins and Michael Huggins, who were also sentenced to death in Barbados. Consequently, the Court’s President issued Orders on February 11 and May 20, 2005, in which he required the State to adopt, without delay, all of the measures necessary to preserve the life and physical integrity of Frederick Atkins and Michael Huggins, respectively, so as not to hinder the processing of their cases before the Inter-American 19 Cf. In the Matter of Viviana Gallardo et al. Series A No.G 101/81, Decision of November 13, 1981, para. 26; Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras, supra note 18, para. 88; Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. V. Brazil. Preliminary Objections and Merits, supra note 18, para. 51, and Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 18, para. 64. 20 Order issued by the President of the Inter-American Court on September 17, 2004. 21 Order issued by the Inter-American Court on November 25, 2004.