9 Consequently, where the State fails to fully comply with its obligation to remedy a violation of rights recognized under the American Convention, this Tribunal may exercise its jurisdiction over the alleged unlawful act (provided that the procedural requirements of the Convention are met), declare the existence of the corresponding violations, if applicable, and order the appropriate reparations pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention. Therefore, the Court considers that the actions that the State said it would adopt to eventually redress the alleged violations committed against Mr. Cadogan may be relevant to the Court’s analysis of the merits of the case and to the eventual reparations it may order, but they have no effect over the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the case. Consequently, the Tribunal dismisses the State’s preliminary objection. IV COMPETENCE 31. 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. V EVIDENCE 32. Based on the provisions of Articles 46 and 47 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as the constant jurisprudence of the Court regarding evidence and the assessment thereof,12 the Court shall examine and assess the evidence contained in the case file. A) Documentary, Testimonial, and Expert Evidence 33. At the request of the President,13 the Court received the declarations by affidavit provided by the alleged victim and six expert witnesses: a) Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan, alleged victim whose declaration was proposed by the Commission and the representatives, testified on the process that led to the imposition of the mandatory death penalty in his case, and the consequences thereof; b) Prof. Nigel Eastman, expert witness proposed by the representatives, is a professor of law and ethics in psychiatry and Head of Forensic Psychiatry of St. George’s University of London. He testified on the relevance of the alleged victim’s mental state to his conviction and sentence, and on the relevance of mental health in death penalty cases from a medical perspective; c) Edward Fitzgerald Q.C., expert witness proposed by the representatives, is a specialist in criminal law, public law, and international human rights law, with significant experience in death penalty appeals. He testified on the relevance, from a legal perspective, of mental state to both conviction and sentencing in death penalty cases; 12 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76; Case of Escher et al., supra note 6, para. 55, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra note 6, para. 22. 13 Order of the President, supra note 4.