29 alleged victims on June 26, 2002. Consequently, the State alleged that warrants of execution were read subsequent to the expiry of the time limits for filing of appeals to the JCPC, and that other deadlines suggested by third persons were neither authorized nor lawful. Thus, the State asserted that no warrants were read to them subsequent to the appeal of their cases to the JCPC. Additionally, the State submitted that domestic law in effect at the time the warrants were read did not recognize the alleged victims a right to file a petition with the Inter-American Commission nor to have a “legitimate expectation” not to be executed until such proceedings were completed. Nevertheless, the State recognized that such a “legitimate expectation” now exists in Barbados pursuant to the recent decision by the Caribbean Court of Justice in Attorney General et al. v. Jeffrey Joseph and Lennox Ricardo Boyce. 106. The Court will first address the readings of the warrants of execution with regards to Messrs. Boyce and Joseph, and subsequently with regards to Messrs. Huggins and Atkins. C.1) Reading of warrants of execution to Messrs. Boyce and Joseph 107. Two of the alleged victims, Messrs. Boyce and Joseph, raised before the Barbados Court of Appeal whether warrants were improperly read to them in 2002 after they had expressed an intention to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and in 2004 while their petition before the Inter-American Commission was pending. Accordingly, on May 31, 2005 the Barbados Court of Appeal held that: [the Barbados Privy Council’s] advice in 2002 that [Messrs. Boyce and Joseph] be executed at a time when they had not exhausted their domestic remedies and had intimated their intention to appeal to the [Judicial Committee of the Privy Council], which they did, was manifestly unfair to the appellants and a denial of natural justice. Similarly, the [Barbados Privy Council’s] advice in 2004 that the [Judicial Committee of the Privy Council’s] Order be carried out without regard to the appellants’ expressed intention to petition the [Inter-American Commission], which they did, was contrary to the binding authority of Lewis[113], and therefore a denial of the appellants’ rights. The death warrants were therefore improperly read to the appellants in both 2002 and 2004.114 108. The Barbados Court of Appeal then proceeded to order the commutation of the death sentences of Messrs. Boyce and Joseph to life imprisonment.115 That Court reasoned that such form of redress was proper in light of the following four factors: first, the five-year limit in which the State could have legally carried out the executions pursuant to the norm established in Pratt (supra, para. 19) was about to expire; second, both alleged victims had been read death warrants on two occasions, and therefore it would be “undesirable to expose [them] to a third reading of the death warrants and the likelihood of further court proceedings”; third, the difference in punishment regarding the sentence imposed to their co-accused who pleaded guilty to manslaughter for the same criminal act was disproportionate, and fourth, Messrs. Boyce and Joseph had “no access to adequate funding 113 Judgment delivered by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Neville Lewis v. Attorney General of Jamaica (September 12, 2000) (holding, in relevant part, that the Barbados Privy Council was bound to await any pending decision of an international human rights body) (case file of appendices to the application, appendix A.7, folios 185-224). 114 Judgment delivered by the Barbados Court of Appeal in Jeffrey Joseph and Lennox Ricardo Boyce v. The Attorney-General et al., supra note 13, (folios 965). 115 Judgment delivered by the Barbados Court of Appeal in Jeffrey Joseph and Lennox Ricardo Boyce v. The Attorney-General et al., supra note 13, (folios 965).