32 solicitors to act on their behalf in prosecution of that appeal.127 Nevertheless, on June 26, 2002 warrants of execution were read to Messrs. Atkins and Huggins after they had expressed an intention to appeal to the JCPC.128 Furthermore, a second warrant of execution was read to Mr. Atkins on February 9, 2005,129 and to Mr. Huggins on May 18, 2005,130 while their petition was pending before the Inter-American Commission.131 116. Unlike the case of Messrs. Boyce and Joseph (supra, paras. 107-114), the Court does not have before it - with regards to Messrs. Atkins and Huggins - any evidence of a judgment from a domestic court in Barbados in which these issues were fully adjudicated and redressed. Thus, the Court must address this issue and accordingly reiterates, for the same reasons stated above (supra, paras. 113 and 114), that it is fundamental that litigants be able to complete their appeals at the national level as well as petitions and applications before the Commission and Court, respectively, before any warrants of execution may be read or any execution may be carried out. Therefore, the Court finds that the reading of death warrants to Messrs. Atkins and Huggins while their domestic appeals and petition before the Inter-American System were pending, constituted a cruel treatment in violation of Article 5 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. XI REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION)132 A) Obligation to Redress 117. It is a principle of International Law that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage gives rise to a duty to adequately redress said violation.133 The obligation to redress is regulated by International Law in every aspect.134 Regarding this matter, the Court has based its decisions on Article 63(1) of the American Convention. 118. In accordance with the criteria established and reiterated in the Court’s jurisprudence 127 Cf. Affidavits of Frederick Atkins and Michael Huggins on the effects of the reading of death warrants, supra note 92, (folios 1553-1554 and 1562-1563). 128 Cf. Affidavits Frederick Atkins and Michael Huggins on the effects of the reading of death warrants, supra note 92, (folios 1553-1554 and 1562-1563). 129 Cf. Final written submissions of the State (merits case file, volume III, folio 886). 130 Cf. Affidavit of Michael Huggins on the reading of the second death warrant, May 18, 2005 (case file of affidavits and observations thereto, appendix 4, folio 6648). 131 Cf. Submission of the petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on September 3, 2004 (case file before the Commission, Appendix E.2 to the Application, volume I, folios 1625-1627). 132 Article 63(1) establishes that: “[i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.” 133 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 25, para. 156, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 25, para. 131. 134 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. V. Suriname. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 44; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 25, para. 165, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 25, para. 131.