5 17. The communication of May 9, 2005, in which the Secretariat requested the State to submit, pursuant to the terms of the President’s Order of February 11, 2005, a report that details the steps Barbados had taken in fulfillment of said Order. Since the report was due to be presented on April 17, 2005, the State was requested, on the instructions of the Court’s President, to submit the information as soon as possible. 18. The communication of May 19, 2005, in which the Inter-American Commission submitted to the Court, pursuant to Articles 63(2) of the American Convention and 25 of the Rules of Procedure, a request that the Court “amplify the provisional measures adopted in the matter of Boyce and Joseph” in favor of Michael Huggins, with the objective that “Barbados takes all measures necessary to preserve the life and physical integrity of Mr. Huggins so as not to hinder the processing of his case before the Inter-American system.” 19. The request of the Commission, which was based upon the following arguments and alleged facts submitted by the petitioners: a) on July 19, 2001, Michael Huggins was convicted of the murder of Stephen Wharton and then was sentenced to a mandatory death penalty. He has since been on death row at the Glendairy Prison in Barbados; b) Barbados is responsible for violating Mr. Huggins’ rights, including the rights to life, to due process, and to be protected from inhuman treatment or punishment (Articles 2, 4, 5 and 8 of the American Convention); c) the State’s mandatory death penalty violates the American Convention’s prohibition against the death penalty, save for the most serious offenses, and amounts to a violation of the alleged victim’s right not to be deprived arbitrarily of his life; d) Mr. Huggins has been or is currently at risk of being exposed to cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment by virtue of the following: the prison conditions in which he is now being held; and the nature itself of the execution – by hanging – which inherently constitutes cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment; e) Mr. Huggins has exhausted available domestic remedies. In this regard, his final appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was dismissed on January 29, 2004; and f) a warrant was read to Mr. Huggins for his execution on Monday, May 23, 2005. 20. The representations made by the Commission to the effect that Mr. Huggins “is under a serious and urgent risk of irreparable damage pending the completion of proceedings before the [I]nter-American human rights system.” Further, the Commission stated that “the execution of the alleged victim prior to the completion of the said processes would render any eventual recommendations or judgments moot in terms of the efficacy of potential remedies, such as commutation of [his] death sentence[].” In light of the above, the Commission concluded that the facts alleged constitute a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, justifying the issuing of an order of provisional measures by the Court, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the