31 the holding of the Lewis case. The JCPC had declared in Lewis that a “constitutional right” existed to have petitions before international human rights bodies completed before consideration of mercy.122 Rather than a constitutional right to complete such international petitions, the majority of the CCJ held in Attorney General et al. v. Jeffrey Joseph and Lennox Ricardo Boyce that there is only a “legitimate expectation” to do so.123 According to the CCJ, the reading of death warrants prior to the conclusion, within a “reasonable time”, of petitions before the Inter-American System, “constituted an infringement of the respondents’ right to the protection of the law”.124 113. Regardless of whether a petitioner has a “constitutional right” or a “legitimate expectation”, this Tribunal considers that it is fundamental that litigants be able to complete their appeals at the national level as well as petitions and applications before the Commission and Court, respectively, before any execution may be carried out. This is a natural consequence of Barbados’ ratification of the American Convention and recognition of the jurisdiction of this Court. A different reading of the Convention would be contrary to its object and purpose, and would render the access of the individual to the Inter-American System, as well as Articles 62(3) and 63(1) of such instrument, meaningless. 114. In this case, the State has recognized that it may not carry out executions, and that it has not done so, after this Court issued binding orders regarding provisional measures pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. The Court has repeatedly held, within this context, that it is the responsibility of the State to adopt measures to protect all persons subject to its jurisdiction and this duty is particularly compelling in the case of persons with petitions pending before the supervisory organs of the American Convention.125 Nevertheless, the Court observes that the duty not to carry out executions while petitions or cases are pending before the Commission or this Tribunal, respectively, derives not only from an actual order of the Court, but also from the American Convention itself, pursuant to its Article 1(1). Accordingly, any reading of death warrants or execution of a person whose petition is before the Inter-American System may constitute a violation of the State’s duty to guarantee the right to life of that person, in accordance with Articles 1(1) and 4 of the Convention, as well as the right not to be subjected to cruel treatment, in accordance with Articles 1(1) and 5 of the Convention. C.2) Reading of warrants of execution to Messrs. Huggins and Atkins 115. On April 5 and April 17, 2002, Messrs. Huggins and Atkins respectively informed the Director of Public Prosecutions in Barbados of their intention to appeal to the JCPC in London against the March 27, 2002 dismissal of their appeals by the Court of Appeals.126 Furthermore, on April 16, 2002, both men notified the Governor General of Barbados of their intention to appeal to the JCPC and of the fact that they had instructed a firm of 122 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Neville Lewis v. Attorney General of Jamaica, supra note 113. 123 Judgment delivered by the Caribbean Court of Justice in The Attorney General et al. v. Jeffrey Joseph and Lennox Ricardo Boyce, supra note 14, para. 143, (folio 3180). 124 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Caribbean Court of Justice in The Attorney General et al. v. Jeffrey Joseph and Lennox Ricardo Boyce, supra note 14, para. 128, (folio 3229). 125 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez et al. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of January 15, 1988, Considering third; Matter of Nieto-Palma et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 3, 2007, Considering fourth, and Matter of Ramírez Hinostroza et al. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 17, 2007, Considering fourth. 126 Cf. Affidavits of Frederick Atkins and Michael Huggins on the effects of the reading of death warrants, supra note 92, (folios 1553-1554 and 1562-1563).