13 because “[m]any of these alleged violations are based upon the mistaken assumption that Article 4 of the Convention prohibits mandatory capital punishment.” Accordingly, a central argument advanced by the State is that the mandatory death penalty remains legally permissible according to internationally recognized rules of treaty interpretation under both the Charter, as interpreted by the American Declaration, and the American Convention. Thus, the State asserted that its constitutionally protected form of capital punishment is not in contravention with its Inter-American human rights obligations. The State submitted that Article 4 must be read strictly, and that its correct interpretation cannot support either an abolitionist agenda or any restriction on the right of States to impose the mandatory capital punishment. The State submitted that the decisions of the Court and the reports of the Commission are incorrect as a matter of law and thus such interpretations would fall outside of the competence of each organ “as being ultra vires”. As a result, the State argued that previous judgments cannot constitute binding or even persuasive precedent, and all of the issues concerning permissible forms of capital punishment must be open for reconsideration by this Court. 49. The Court considers that there is no dispute that the four alleged victims, Messrs. Boyce, Joseph,34 Atkins35 and Huggins36 were sentenced to capital punishment37 pursuant to Section 2 of Barbados’ Offences Against the Person Act of 1994, which reads: “[a]ny person convicted of murder shall be sentenced to, and suffer, death.”38 There is also no dispute that such legislation imposes a mandatory sentence of death for persons convicted for the 34 Jeffrey Joseph and Lennox Ricardo Boyce were accused together with Rodney Murray and Romaine Bend of allegedly beating Marquelle Hippolyte on April 10, 1999, which eventually caused his death on April 15, 1999. On January 10, 2001 they were arraigned for the crime of murder. Rodney Murray and Romaine Bend pleaded guilty to the lesser offence of manslaughter, which was accepted by the Prosecution. Boyce and Joseph, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder. On February 2, 2001 Lennox Boyce and Jeffrey Joseph were found guilty of murder and sentenced to suffer death by hanging pursuant to the Offences Against the Person Act. Cf. Lennox Ricardo Boyce and Jeffrey Joseph v. The Queen, Record of proceedings (case file of appendices to the application, volume II, appendix B.1, folios 502 and 814-815); 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 910-912); Affidavit of Jeffrey Joseph, August 17, 2004 (case file of appendices to the application, volume IV, appendix D.1, folios 1556), and Affidavit of Lennox Boyce, August 17, 2004 (case file of appendices to the application, volume IV, appendix D.1, folio 1559). 35 Frederick Benjamin Atkins was charged with the murder of Sharmaine Hurley, who died sometime between October 10 and 13, 1998, as a result of two stab wounds in the chest. Mr. Atkins pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder and on July 21, 2000 was convicted and sentenced to suffer death by hanging pursuant to the Offences Against the Person Act. Cf. Her Majesty The Queen v. Frederick Benjamin Atkins, Trial Transcript (case file of appendices to the application, volume III, appendix B.6, folios 1010, 1014, 1085, and 1325), and Judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal of Barbados, Frederick Benjamin Atkins v. The Queen, Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2000 (case file of appendices to the application, volume III, appendix B.7, folio 1328). 36 Michael McDonald Huggins was accused of the murder of Stephen Wharton, who died as a result of a gunshot wound on November 30, 1999. Mr. Huggins pleaded not guilty to the crime of murder and on July 19, 2001, he was convicted and sentenced to suffer death by hanging pursuant to the Offences Against the Person Act. Cf. Michael McDonald Huggins v. The Queen, supra note 16, (folios 1384 and 1476), and Affidavit of Michael Huggins, August 17, 2004 (case file of appendices to the application, volume IV, appendix D.1, folio 1562). 37 The Tribunal recalls that it is not a criminal court before which a person’s individual criminal responsibility can be adjudicated. This matter corresponds to domestic courts. Furthermore, the Court is cognizant of the State’s duty to protect all persons, prevent the commission of crimes, punish those responsible and generally maintain public order. However, the State’s crime prevention and punishment regime should be carried out with the utmost respect for the human rights of the persons under their jurisdiction and in compliance with the applicable human rights treaties. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 154; Case of Suárez Rosero V. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 37; Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, para. 55, and Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 63. 38 Offences Against the Person Act, Ch. 141 (case file of appendices to the answer to the application, volume I, appendix 23, folio 2980).