23 DaCosta Cadogan’s state of mind in order to hold] that the [representatives’] submission in this area was baseless.” Therefore, the State considered the representatives’ arguments “inappropriate and clearly […] an attempt to use th[e Inter-American] Court as a fourth instance of appeal.” 79. First, the Tribunal observes that the parties agree that all criminal defendants in Barbados undergo a basic psychiatric evaluation in order to determine whether he or she is fit to plead. The purpose of this preliminary evaluation is to examine, inter alia, whether the accused understands the charges against him or her, and whether the accused is capable of communicating with his or her legal representative in a clear and coherent fashion. Similarly, there is no controversy as to the fact that Mr. DaCosta Cadogan was preliminarily evaluated by a state-employed psychiatrist at the beginning of the criminal process, who determined that he was mentally fit to plead. The representatives nevertheless submitted that this preliminary evaluation was not sufficient to determine whether Mr. DaCosta Cadogan had any mental condition relevant to a defense of diminished responsibility.63 80. It is also undisputed that a full psychiatric evaluation by a state-employed mental health professional from Barbados’s Psychiatric Hospital is available, free of charge, to all criminal defendants in Barbados, including those on trial for a capital offense. The parties agree that such an evaluation will be provided at the request of a defendant or if the judge deems one necessary. According to the parties, the judge is not under an obligation to request such an evaluation if he or she does not deem it necessary, nor is the judge under any obligation to explicitly inform the accused that such an evaluation is available. It is agreed that Mr. DaCosta Cadogan was never fully evaluated by a mental health professional during his trial, since neither his attorney nor the presiding judge requested such an evaluation. 81. On appeal, Mr. DaCosta Cadogan obtained new legal representation that submitted as evidence a preliminary psychological evaluation by Dr. Mahy, a mental health professional whose “impression” was that Mr. DaCosta Cadogan could qualify, upon further examination, for a “[d]ual [d]iagnosis of [a]nti-[s]ocial personality disorder and substance abuse.”64 In light of this preliminary diagnostic, Mr. DaCosta Cadogan´s new legal representation requested that the Caribbean Court of Justice allow him to submit a further, definitive, psychiatric report.65 The Caribbean Court of Justice summarily denied this request, stating that Dr. Mahy’s preliminary opinion was “very weak material upon which to hope to establish a basis for a diminished responsibility plea,” “f[ell] short of the standard required for presenting an arguable case on abnormality of the mind,” and did not give rise to concern about the safety of the verdict.66 Thus, the Caribbean Court of Justice affirmed the judgments of both the trial court and the Court of Appeal on this point, satisfying itself 63 Section 4(1) [defense of diminished responsibility] of The Offenses Against the Persons Act 1994, states the following: "[w]here a person kills or is party to the killing of another, he shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from such abnormality of mind, whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind for any inherent cause or induced by disease or injury, as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing." Also, Section 4 (2) states that "on a charge of murder, it shall be for the defence to prove that the person is by virtue of this section not liable to be convicted of murder.” In such cases, Section 4(3) requires that the conviction be reduced to that of manslaughter instead of murder. 64 “Letter/Report from Dr. Mahy, 27th June 2008” (case file of appendices to the representatives´ brief, volume I, appendix 2, folios 1352 to 1354). 65 Cf. Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan v. The Queen [2006] CCJ 4 (AJ), CCJ Appeal No. AL 6 of 2006, Judgment of 4 December 2006 (case file of appendices to the application, volume II, annex B4, folios 1008 and 1009, para. 10). 66 Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan, supra note 65, paras. 11 and 13.