2 b) on December 29, 2006, the Commission received a petition2 requesting the adoption of precautionary measures on behalf of Mr. Cadogan so that no steps would be taken to carry out his death sentence pending the determination of his petition by the Commission; c) on January 23, 2007, the Commission adopted precautionary measures on behalf of Mr. Cadogan. It considered that if Mr. Cadogan were to be executed before it had the opportunity to examine his case, any eventual decision would be rendered ineffectual in terms of potential remedies, and he would suffer irreparable harm. Consequently, the Commission requested an urgent response from the State to preserve Mr. Cardogan’s life and physical integrity; d) on January 23, 2007, and January 14 and May 5, 2008, the Commission requested the State to provide information on Mr. Cadogan’s situation and any steps adopted by Barbados to protect his life and physical integrity in the context of the precautionary measures; e) on July 4, 2008, the State informed the Commission that warrants of execution had not been issued against Mr. Cadogan pursuant to the decision by the Caribbean Court of Justice in the case of Attorney General et al. v. Jeffrey Joseph and Lennox Ricardo Boyce. The State indicated that, according to that decision, “no warrant of execution can be issued […] while either the Inter-American Commission or the [Inter-American] Court is processing the petition [because] the doctrine of legitimate expectations provide[s] an individual the right to conclude his petition before the Inter-American Commission, to have the Commission’s reports considered by the Barbados Privy Council[,] and to have his execution stayed until those processes have been completed”; and f) the Caribbean Court of Justice stated, in the case of Attorney General et al. v. Jeffrey Joseph and Lennox Ricardo Boyce, that “[…] protracted delay on the part of [an] international body in disposing of the proceedings initiated before it by a condemned person, could justify the State, notwithstanding the existence of the condemned man’s legitimate expectation [not to be executed before or until such international body has disposed of the proceedings], [in] carry[ing] out an execution before completion of the international process.” 3. The legal arguments of the Commission on which the request for provisional measures is based, namely, that: a) Mr. Cadogan “is under a continuing risk of irreparable damage pending the completion of his proceedings before the [I]nter-American human rights system”; b) “the execution of the alleged victim prior to the completion of his process at the Court would render any eventual judgment moot in terms of the efficacy of potential remedies, such as commutation of his death sentence”; c) pursuant to the decision of the Caribbean Court of Justice in the case of Attorney General et al. v. Jeffrey Joseph and Lennox Ricardo Boyce, there are certain circumstances under which the State “would not move forward with steps to execute a death sentence during the pendency of a petition before an international instance. 2 The petitioners were Messrs. Alair P. Shepherd Q.C. and M. Tariq Khan.