5 reservations.7 Firstly, in interpreting reservations the Court must first and foremost rely on a strictly textual analysis. Secondly, due consideration must also be assigned to the object and purpose of the relevant treaty8 which, in the case of the American Convention, involves the “protection of the basic rights of individual human beings.”9 In addition, the reservation must be interpreted in accordance with Article 29 of the Convention, which implies that a reservation may not be interpreted so as to limit the enjoyment and exercise of the rights and liberties recognized in the Convention to a greater extent than is provided for in the reservation itself.10 16. Textually, the first paragraph of the reservation in question specifically refers to Article 4(4) of the Convention, which excludes the application of capital punishment to political offenses or related common crimes in absolute terms.11 In this regard, the State explicitly expressed in the text of its reservation its purpose and extent, stating that it “wishes to enter a reservation on this point inasmuch as treason in certain circumstances might be regarded as a political offence”. The second paragraph of the reservation similarly addresses the State’s particular concern over Article 4(5) of the Convention with regard to the application of capital punishment to “persons of 16 years and over or over 70 years of age”. 17. The Court has previously considered that “a State reserves no more than what is contained in the text of the reservation itself.”12 In this case, the text of the reservation does not explicitly state whether a sentence of death is mandatory for the crime of murder, nor does it address whether other possible methods of execution or sentences are available under Barbadian law for such a crime. Accordingly, the Court finds that a textual interpretation of the reservation entered by Barbados at the time of ratification of the American Convention clearly indicates that this reservation was not intended to exclude from the jurisdiction of this Court neither the mandatory nature of the death penalty nor the particular form of execution by hanging. Thus the State may not avail itself of this reservation to that effect. B. Alleged Mootness of Questions Presented in this Case 18. The State has alleged that the issues of mandatory death penalty and hanging are “moot and no longer relevant” to the four alleged victims, as none of them “will be hanged”. Mr. Atkins cannot be executed because he died in prison in 2005 due to illness. Mr. Boyce and Mr. Joseph had their sentences commuted to life imprisonment as a result of the decision of the Barbados Court of Appeal on May 31, 2005,13 which was upheld by the 7 Cf. The Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights (Arts. 74 and 75). Advisory Opinion OC-2/82 of September 24, 1982. Series A No. 2, para. 35, and Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-3/83 of September 8, 1983. Series A No. 3, paras. 60-66. 8 Cf. Article 75 of the American Convention and Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (stating that reservations to a treaty must be compatible with the object and purpose of the treaty). 9 The Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights (Arts. 74 and 75, supra note 7, para. 29, and Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 7, para. 65. 10 Cf. Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 7, para. 66. 11 Cf. Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 7, para. 54. 12 Cf. Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 7, para. 69. 13 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Barbados Court of Appeal in Jeffrey Joseph and Lennox Ricardo Boyce v. The Attorney-General et al., Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2004 (May 31, 2005) (case file of appendices to the application, volume II, appendix B.5, folios 908-981).