60 183) Finally, the representatives argued that all the persons included in the present Case are victims, some because they were read their execution order, others because they were in danger of being executed, and finally, in the case of Joey Ramiah, because the execution was carried out. In every case, the victims had no effective recourse to amnesty, pardon or commutation procedures. * * * Assessment of the Court 184) The Court observes that Article 4 of the American Convention is based on the principle that the death penalty should be applied only for the most serious crimes and in exceptional circumstances, and grants to those sentenced to death the additional right to seek amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence before the competent authority. 185) Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the State’s duty to respect and guarantee the exercise of the rights protected therein (supra para. 141) and Article 4(6) states that [e]very person condemned to death shall have the right to apply for amnesty, pardon, or commutation of sentence, which may be granted in all cases. Capital punishment shall not be imposed while such a petition is pending decision by the competent authority. 186) In the present Case, the Court finds that the individual mercy petitions provided for in the Constitution should be exercised though fair and adequate procedures, in conformity with Article 4(6) of the Convention 143 and in conjunction with the relevant due process guarantees established in Article 8. In other words, it is not enough merely to be able to submit a petition; rather, the petition must be treated in accordance with procedural standards that make this right effective. 143 In this respect, the Privy Council stated the following: [the prerogative of mercy] should [i]n the light of the [S]tate’s international obligations, be exercised by procedures which were fair and proper and amenable to judicial review; that in considering what natural justice required it was relevant to have regard to international human rights norms laid down in treaties to which the state was a party, whether or not they were independently enforceable in domestic law; that, therefore, the condemned man was entitled to sufficient notice of the date when the [Jamaican Privy Council] was bound to consider before taking a decision, when a report by an international human rights body was available the [Jamaican Privy Council] should consider it and give an explanation if it did not accept the report’s recommendations, and the condemned man should normally be given an explanation when it did not accept the report’s recommendations, and the condemned man should normally be given a copy of all the documents available to the [Jamaican Privy Council] and not merely the gist of them; that the defects in the procedures adopted in relation to the applicants’ petitions for mercy had resulted in a breach of the rules of fairness and of natural justice; and that, accordingly, they had been deprived of the protection of the law to which they were entitled […]. Cf. Neville Lewis et al. v. Attorney General of Jamaica. Judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of September 12, 2000, p. 1786.