10 37. The Court values the steps taken by the State in order to comply with these obligations. However, it also notes that the State's compliance with the obligation to set aside the death penalty imposed on Mr. DaCosta Cadogan and to provide him a hearing for the judicial determination of the appropriate sentence in his case, which may not result in the imposition of the death penalty, necessarily depends on its enactment of the legislative measures ordered in the DaCosta Cadogan Judgment. Therefore, the Court finds that the present orders have not been complied with and requests that the State submit information specifying when Mr. Cadogan’s resentencing hearing is likely to occur. C.3. Payment of costs and expenses to Mr. DaCosta Cadogan's representatives (Operative Paragraph thirteen of the DaCosta Cadogan Judgment) 38. The State affirmed that “Payment for reimbursement of the costs and expenses […] was made by Barbados to the [victim’s representatives,] who confirmed receipt on September 7, 2010, of these funds.” 39. The victim’s representatives acknowledged receipt of USD $17,975.00 (seventeen thousand nine hundred seventy-five dollars of the United States of America) from the State as reimbursement of costs and expenses, “as ordered by the Court.” 40. The Commission noted that “Barbados had the duty to [reimburse the representatives' costs and expenses] within […] six months” as of the date the DaCosta Cadogan Judgment was served and indicated that it would “provide more conclusive observations on this matter” when it had received the observations of the representatives (supra Considering clause 39). 41. In light of the statements of the parties, and, in particular, the acknowledgment of the representatives, the Court finds that this order has been complied with. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, by virtue of its authority to monitor compliance with its own decisions and pursuant to Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65, 67, and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, Articles 24, 25 and 30 of the Statute of the Court, and Articles 31(2) and 69 of its Rules of Procedure, DECLARES IN RELATION TO THE BOYCE AND DACOSTA CADOGAN JUDGMENTS THAT: 1. In accordance with Considering clauses 9-17 of this Order, compliance with the following obligations contained in both Judgments is pending: a) the obligation to adopt, within a reasonable time from the date of notification of the [Boyce] Judgment, 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 (Operative Paragraph seven of the Boyce Judgment);