5 This judicial determination of [the] sentence would be provided in a sentence review hearing by the trial judge, and if the trial judge [were to be] unavailable, by the Chief Justice.” Finally, the State reiterated that it would submit evidence to the Court of the final legislative measures adopted. 11. The representatives welcomed the State’s decision to abolish the mandatory aspect of the death penalty and indicated that they “look forward to receiving evidence of the relevant legislative changes once available.” Furthermore, the representatives asked the State to confirm whether the proposed legislative changes “will apply retrospectively” so that all prisoners currently sentenced to death will have those sentences quashed and be entitled to re-sentencing hearings. Finally, the representatives requested that the State provide a timeline for enacting the proposed legislation, as well as drafts of the bills currently under consideration. 12. The Commission welcomed the State's position and indicated that “it would be of great importance for the State to present information [on] how this change will be codified in law and put into practice,” as well as on “the timeframe in which this legislative development [will] take place.” 13. The Court values the State's willingness to abolish the mandatory aspect of the death penalty and to submit evidence of this change once legislative measures have been enacted. However, as it has not yet received this information, the Court finds that the present orders are pending compliance and requests that the State submit an updated report on the status of the draft bills reviewed by the “Committee to Study the Ramifications of Repealing Section 26 of the Constitution,” as well as a copy of those bills (supra Considering clauses 10-11). A.2. The obligation to adopt legislative or other measures necessary to ensure that the Constitution and laws of Barbados are brought into compliance with the American Convention, and, specifically, remove the immunizing effect of section 26 of the Constitution in respect of “existing laws” (Operative Paragraph eight of the Boyce Judgment and Operative Paragraph nine of the DaCosta Cadogan Judgment) 14. With respect to the Boyce case, the State reported that it had decided to abolish section 26 of the Barbadian Constitution and would forward evidence of this change to the Court once it became available. However, in its report on compliance with the DaCosta Cadogan Judgment, the State indicated that a “Committee to Study the Ramifications of Repealing Section 26 of the Constitution” (supra Considering clause 10) had been formed in order to consider, inter alia, the repeal of section 26 of the Constitution. According to the State, this Committee had reviewed all of the legislation saved by virtue of section 26 and examined draft legislation to effect the required changes, including the “Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2010” considered at its meeting of October 14, 2010 (supra Considering clause 10). 15. The representatives welcomed the State's decision to repeal section 26 of the Constitution and stated that they “look[ed] forward to receiving evidence of this constitutional change in due course.” They also requested that the State submit a “timeline for enacting the proposed legislation, as well as drafts of the bills currently under consideration.”