9 system, and to maintain all the measures taken in favor of Lennox Boyce and Jeffrey Joseph for the same purpose.22 On June 14, 2005, the Court ratified the President’s Orders of February 11 and May 20, 2005 and required the State to adopt without delay all necessary measures to comply with those Orders.23 33. As of the date of this Judgment, the State has not executed any of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures ordered by this Tribunal. VII EVIDENCE 34. Based on the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as the Court’s prior decisions regarding evidence and its assessment,24 the Court will proceed to examine and assess the documentary evidence submitted by the Commission, the representatives, and the State at the different procedural stages, or as evidence requested by the President or the Court to facilitate the adjudication of the case. It will also examine and assess the testimonies and expert opinions provided by affidavit or before the Court in the public hearing. To that effect, the Court shall abide by the principles of sound criticism, within the corresponding legal framework.25 A) Documental, Testimonial, and Expert Evidence 35. At the request of the President,26 the Court received the testimonies and declarations by affidavit provided by the following witnesses and expert witnesses27: a) Lennox Ricardo Boyce, Jeffrey Joseph, and Michael McDonald Huggins, witnesses proposed by the representatives, are three of the alleged victims. They testified regarding their particular prison conditions and general conditions of confinement at Glendairy Prison and Harrison’s Point Temporary Prison, and the reading of warrants of execution while their domestic appeals and their application before the Inter-American Commission were allegedly pending; b) Frank Thornhill, witness proposed by the State, is a Chief Technical Officer in the Ministry of Public Works and Transport of Barbados, and testified regarding the mechanical procedures related to judicial hangings in Barbados; 22 Orders issued by the President of the Inter-American Court on February 11 and May 20, 2005. Order issued by the Inter-American Court on June 14, 2005, supra note 5. 24 Cf. Case of The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community V. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 86; Case of The “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50, and Case of Bámaca Velásquez V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 15. See also Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paras. 183 and 184; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 18, paras. 67, 68 and 69, and Case of Servellón García et al V. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 34. 23 25 Cf. Case of The “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al), supra note 25, para. 76; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz V. Perú. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 38, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. V. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 32. 26 Orders issued by the President of the Court, supra notes 4 and 5. 27 The representatives in their June 18, 2007 communication informed the Court that they would not file affidavits neither from the witness Ms. Cynthiere Atkins nor from the expert witness Professor William Schabas, who were required to render their testimony and expert opinion, respectively, by affidavit per the May 29, 2004 Order of the President, supra note 4.