18 arbitrary deprivation of the right to life recognized in Article 4(1) of the Convention, as it fails to individualize the sentence in conformity with the characteristics of the crime, as well as the participation and degree of culpability of the accused.60 * 62. In light of these facts, the Court concludes that because the Offences Against the Person Act submits all persons charged with murder to a judicial process in which the participation and degree of culpability of the accused and the individual circumstances of the crime are not considered, the aforementioned Act violates the prohibition against the arbitrary deprivation of life and fails to limit the application of the death penalty to the most serious crimes, in contravention of Article 4(1) and 4(2) of the Convention. 63. Therefore, the Court considers that Barbados has violated Article 4(1) and 4(2) of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Messrs. Boyce, Joseph, Atkins, and Huggins. * * * 64. With regard to the Commission and representatives’ allegations that the mandatory death penalty in Barbados is also in violation of Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention, this Court considers, as in previous cases,61 that the facts related to such allegations have already been examined in the preceding paragraphs in relation to the violation of Article 4 of the Convention (supra, paras. 49-63). Thus, it is unnecessary for the Court to address such further allegations. IX FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ARTICLE 262 OF THE CONVENTION 63 IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLES 1(1), 4(1), 4(2) AND 25(1) THEREOF 65. In this chapter, the Court will address the parties´ arguments regarding the following two issues: whether the death penalty legislation and the so-called “savings clause” of the Constitution of Barbados are incompatible with the American Convention. 66. The Commission argued that “failure of Barbados to amend or invalidate section 2 of the Offences Against the Person Act so as to bring its laws into compliance with the American Convention constitutes a per se violation of Article 2 of the Convention” as it is Furthermore, the incompatible with Articles 4, 5, 8 and 1(1) of such instrument. 60 Similarly, the Human Rights Committee has highlighted in its concluding observations on Barbados that “it remains concerned that the State party’s laws make the imposition of the death penalty mandatory in respect of certain crimes, thus depriving the sentencing court of any discretion in imposing the penalty in the light of all the circumstances of the case.” UNHRC, Consideration of Reports submitted by States Parties under Article 40 of the Covenant, Concluding Observations on Barbados (Eighty-ninth session, 2007), CCPR/C/BRB/CO/3, May 11, 2007, para. 9. 61 Cf. Case of Raxcacó Reyes, supra note 37, para. 106. 62 In its relevant part, Article 2 stipulates that: “Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms”. 63 In its relevant part, Article 25 stipulates that: “Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties”.