CORTE INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOS COUR INTERAMERICAINE DES DROITS DE L:HOMME CORTE INTERAMERICANA DE DIREITOS HUMANOS INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS PRESIDENTE DE LA CORTE ORDER Of THE PRESIDENT Of THE INTER-AMERICAN COLJRT Of HUMAN RIGHTS Of MAY 29, 2007 CASE Of BOYCE ET AL. V. BARBADOS HAVING SEEN: 1. The application submitted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Inter-American Commission" or "the Commission") to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter "the Inter-American Court", "the Court" or "the Tribunal") on June 23, 2006, in which three expert witnesses were proposed. 2.

The brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter "the representatives' brief") submitted by the representatives of the alieged victims and their next of kin (hereinafter "the representatives") on October 18, 2006, by which the representatives informed the Court that five "further affidavits and reports" were "yet to be filed". 3.

The communication of October 27, 2006, by which the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter "the Secretariat") informed the representatives that "the Court will timely assess the necessity of requesting the 'affidavits and reports' that were not submitted at th[at] procedural juneture, pursuant to article 44.1 of its Rules of Procedure" and requested them to submit the eurricula vitarum of Mr.

Adrian King, Dr. Harold Hiliman and Dr. Albert Hunt. 4. The communications received on November 13 and 17, 2006, by which the representatives provided the curricula vitarum requested by the Secretariat. 5. The answer to the application and observations to the representatives' brief received on December 18, 2006, in which, inter alía, the Illustrlous State of Barbados (hereinafter "the State" or "Barbados") submitted the preliminary objeetion of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and proposed two expert witnesses. 6.

The communications of January 17, 2007, by which the Secretariat asked the State to submit to the Court the eurricula vitarum of its proposed expert witnesses, Mr. Charles Leacock and Mr..John Nurse, and requested the Commission and the representatives to submit written briefs on the preliminary objection presented by the State (supra Having Seen 5).

TeL: (506) 234-0581 Fax: (506) 234-0584 Apdo 6906-1000 San José, Costa Rica E-mai1: corteidhriscorteidh.orcr • Pag. Web: www.corteidh.or.cr 2 7. The communications of February 21, 2007, by which the Inter-American Cornmission and the representatives subrnitted briefs on the State's preliminary objection (supra Having Seen 6). 8. The cornrnunicaticns of February 23, 2007, in which the Secretariat, following the instructions of the Court's President, requested the representatives to confirm, no later than March 6, 2007, their intention to submit the five "affldavits and reports" identified in their brief.

Furtherrnore, the Secretariat asked the Inter-Arnerican Comrnission and the State to subrnit, no later than March 6, 2007, their definltive list of expert witnesses. Additlonally, for reasons of procedural economy, the Secretarlat asked the State and the Commlsslon to indlcate whlch of the expert wltnesses could render their declaratlon by affidavit, pursuant to Article 47(3) of the Court's Rules of Procedure.

Flnally, the Secretarlat reiterated the request made In Its January 17, 2007 communlcatlon (supra Havlng Seen 6) that the State submit to the Court the curricula vitarum or its proposed expert witnesses. 9. The communication of March 2, 2007, In which the representa ti ves requested permlssion to submit an additional written pleading, pursuant to Article 39 of the Court's Rules of Procedure. 10.

The Secretariat's communication of March 6, 2007, in which the Court's President, pursuant to Article 39 of the Court's Rules of Procedure, allowed the representatives to submit an additional written pleading, no later than March 30, 2007. Additionally, the InterAmerican Commission and the State were given a period of two weeks, counted from the date on which they each received the representatives' submission, to present their respective observations. 11.

The communication subrnitted on March 6, 2007, by which the representatives presented their definitive list of witnesses and expert witnesses (supra Having Seen 8). The representatives offered three expert witnesses to present oral expert opinion, four witnesses and two expert witnesses to provide declarations by affidavit, and requested the inclusion of two additional expert wltnesses to provide their expert opinion by affidavit.

Furtherrnore, they submitted the curricula vitarum of the two additional proposed expert witnesses. Finally, the representatives asked the Court to request the State to grant access to Harrison Point Prison to two expert witnesses for the preparation of their proposed expert declarations, in accordance with Article 24 of the Court's Rules of Procedure. 12.

The communication of March 6, 2007, in which the Inter-American Cornrnission submitted its definitive list of expert witnesses (supra Having Seen 8). The Cornrnission confirmed its proposal of two expert witnesses who would render their expert opinion orally during the public hearing. In addition, in accordance with Article 47(3) of the Court's Rules of Procedure, the Commission determined that one expert witness could submit her expert opinion by affldavit.

Furthermore, the Comrnission asked the Court to require the State to "allow the offered expert witnesses to visit Harrison Point fa ci lity where the [alleged] victirns are currently detained" and highlighted the irnportance of having sald expert opinions for the "Court to benefit frorn inforrnation from both parties on the same contentious issue". 13.

The cornrnunications of March 15, 2007, in which the Secretariat inforrned the parties that, since the State of Barbados did not submit its definitive list of expert witnesses, the President of the Court would evaluate the convenience of receiving the declarations of the expert witnesses proposed by the State in lts answer to the application, as well as the rnanner in which said declaratlons would be received by the Court.

Additionally, upon the instructions of the Court's President, the parties were informed that 3 they had until March 21, 2007 to submit observations on the definitive lists and on the State's offering of expert witnesses as stated in its answer to the appllcatlon. 14. The communication of March 21, 2007, whereby the Commission stated that it had "no observations" in relation to the final list of witnesses submitted by the representa ti ves, and that it had "no objection" in relation to the two additional expert witnesses proposed by the representatives.

In relation to the State's proposed expert witness declarations of Mr. John Nurse and Mr. Charles Leacock, the Commission argued that their declarations should, if deemed otherwise admissible, be subrnltted as witness testimony. 15. The communication of March 28, 2007, whereby the State of Barbados, pursuant to Article 39 of the Court's Rules of Procedure, sought permission to "respond briefly to the two sets of submissions regarding the State's preliminary objections".

Additionaliy, the State suggested it be aliowed to submit said observations within the same deadline established for the State to submit its observations on the representatives' additional pleading. 16. The communication of March 29, 2007, in which the representatives requested an extension of the deadline for the submission of its additional written pleading.

In this regard, upon the instructions of the Court's President, the representatives were aliowed to submit their additional pleading no later than April 6, 2007. 17. The communication of March 30, 2007, whereby the Secretariat, foliowing the instructions of the Court's President, requested the Sta te, for reasons of procedural economy, and considering that the State's request does not conform with the Court's practice or lts Rules of Procedure, to present its arguments regarding the State's preliminary objection (supra Having Seen 15) at the appropriate procedural opportunity, namely, during the public hearing that wili be held in the present case, and also in its final written arguments.

Furthermore, upon the instructions of the Court's President, the Secretariat reminded the State to submit the curricula vitarum of its proposed expert witnesses, which were also requested on January 17, 2007 and on February 23, 2007 (supra Having Seen 6 and 8). 18. The communications of April 4 and 6, 2007, whereby the representatives submitted an additional pleading pursuant to Article 39 of the Court's Rules of Procedure. 19.

The communication of April 11, 2007, in which the Secretariat, upon the instructions of the Court's President, informed the Inter-American Commission and the State that each party would have a period of two weeks, counted from the date on which they each receive the aforementioned representatives' submission (supra Having Seen 18), to present their respective observatlons.

The State was also reminded to submit the curricula vitarum of its proposed expert witnesses, which were also requested on January 17, 2007, February 23, 2007, and on March 30, 2007 (supra Having Seen 6, 8, and 17). 20. The communication of April 11, 2007, whereby the representatives of the alieged vlctírns and their next of kin requested the Court's permission to substitute proposed expert witness Dr. Albert Hunt with alternative expert witness Dr. Deryk Simon James, due to Dr. Hunt's ill health.

The representatives further requested that Dr. Deryk Simon James be aliowed to submit an affidavit on the subject of hanging, rather than declare in person at the public hearing. In this regard, the Secretariat asked the representatives to submit Dr. Simon James' curriculum vitae. 4 21. The communication of April 20, 2007, whereby the representatives submitted the curriculum vitae of Dr. Deryk Sirnon James, the proposed substitute witness for Dr. Albert Hunt, Accordingly, pursuant to the instructions of the Court's President, the Inter-Amerlcan Commission and the State of Barbados were given until April 24, 2007 to submit their respective observations. 22.

The communication of April 24, 2007, by which the Inter-Arnerican Cornmission informed that it had "no observations" regarding the offering of Dr. Deryk Simon Jarnes' declaratlon. 23. The communications of April 25, 2007, whereby the Inter-American Comrnission and the State subrnitted thelr respective observations to the representatives' additional written pleading submitted pursuant to Article 39 of the Court's Rules of Procedure. 24.

The comrnunication of April 25, 2007, by which the State of Barbados stated "it has no basis for an objection to [the] appointrnent [of Dr. Deryk Simon James] as an expert". 25, The communication of May 4, 2007, in whlch the Secretariat informed that it had requested the State, on four separate occasions, to submit the curricula vitarum of its proposed expert witnesses.

However, the Secretariat, following instructions of the Court's President, informed the State that, unless it submitted the aforementioned curricula vitarum no later than May 9, 2007, the Court would assume that the State no longer wished to offer the expert witness testimony of Mr. Charles Leacock and Mr. John Nurse. 26. The cornmunication of May 7, 2007, by which the State of Barbados submitted its definitive iist of witnesses and expert witnesses.

The State offered the witness testimony of Mr. Charles Leacock and Mr. John Nurse, rather than their expert witness declaration. In addition, the Sta te sought the Court's perrnission to submit by affidavit the witness testimony of Mr. Frank Thornhill, in order to rebut the evidence offered by the representatives regarding hangings, and submitted the curricula vitarum of all proposed witnesses.

In this regard, upon the instructions of the Court's President, the Commission and the representatives were given until May 11, 2007 to submit any observations they deemed pertinent to the State's communication. 27. The communication received on May 14, 2007, in which the Commission stated lt had "no objection to the three witnesses offered" by the State (supra Having Seen 26). 28.

The cornmunication of May 14, 2007, in which the representatives expressed that they had no observations regarding the witness testimony of Mr. Charles Leacock, Mr. John Nurse and Mr. Frank Thornhill (supra Having Seen 26). CONSIDERING: 1. That regarding the admission of evidence, Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure provides: 1. Items of evldence tendered by the partles shall be admlsslble only If prevlous notlflcatlon thereof Is contalned In the appllcatlon and In the reply thereto and, when approprlate, In the document setting out the prelimlnary objectlons and in the answer thereto, [.] 3" Should any of the parties allege force majeure, serlous lmpedlment or the emergence of supervenlng events as grounds for producing an Item of evldence, the Court may, in that 5 particular Instance, admlt such evidence at a time other than those indlcated aboye, provlded that the opposlng partles are guaranteed the right of detense. 4, In the case of the alleged vletim, his next of kin or his duly aeeredited representatives, the admission of evidenee shall also be governed by the provlsions of Articles 23, 36 and 37(5) of the Rules of Proeedure. 2.

That with respect to the admission of evidence presented by the representatives of the alleged victims, Article 23( 1) of the Rules of Procedure sta tes that [w)hen the applleatlon has been admltted, the alleged vletlms, thelr next of kln cr their duly accredited representatlves may submlt thelr pleadings, rnotíons and evldence, autonomously, throughout the proeeedlngs. 3.

That the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State were given the right of defense with regard to the evidentiary proposals made by each of the parties at the different procedural junctures (supra Having Seen 13, 19,21,22,23,27, and 28). * * * 4. That the Inter-American Commission proposed its expert witness evidence during the appropriate stage of the proceedings (supra Having Seen 12).

The expert witnesses proposed by the Commission are the following: Adrian King, Andrew Coyle and Baroness Vivien Stern. 5. That the representatives informed the Court in their brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence that five annexes containing "further affidavits and reports" were "yet to be filed" with the Court (supra Having Seen 2).

The representatives identified these annexes as follows: "Further Affidavits of the 1'" 2nd, and 4t h alleged vlctlms (to be filed)"; "Further report of Professor Andrew Coyle and Baroness Vivien Stern eBE on prison conditions (to be filed)"; "Affidavit evidence of Mr. Atkins' next-of-kin (to be filed)"; "Affidavit of Adrian King, Attorney-at-Law in Barbados (to be filed)", and "Further expert evidence from Dr. Hillman and Dr. HLJnt on death by hanging (to be ñled)", 6.

That, when raquested to confirm their intention to submit the additional "affidavits and reports" identified in their brief, the representatives offered the oral expert opinion of Mr. Adrian King, Professor Andrew Coyle and Or. Albert Hunt. Furthermore, they offered the testimony by affidavit of Messrs. Lennox Boyce, Jeffrey Joseph and Michael Huggins, as alleged victims, and of Mrs.

Cynthiere Esther Atkins, mother of a fourth alleged victim, as well as the expert opinion by affidavit of Baroness Vivien Stern and Or. Harold Hillman (supra Having Seen 11). 7. That this Presidency observes that the persons proposed by the representatives to provide witness testimony by affidavit correspond to three alleged victims and to the mother of a deceased alleged victim.

In this regard, the COLJrt has consistently held that the declarations of the alleged victims and other persons with a direct interest in the case are useful insofar as they can provide greater information on the alleged violations and their consequences.' Ct, Case of Chaparro Á/varez and Lapo Iñlguez. Order of the Inter-Amerlean Court of Human Rlghts of March 15, 2007 r Conslderlng seventh;

Case of Cornejo et al" Order of the Presldent of the Inter-Amerlcan Court of Human Rights of Mareh 15, 2007, Conslderlng síxth, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. Order of the Presldent of the Inter-American Court of Human Rlghts of March 15, 2007, Consldering slxth. 6 8. That the representatives informed the Court that Dr. Albert Hunt will not be able to appear as an expert witness before the Court due to his ill health (supra Havínq seen 20).

As his substituta, the representatives offered the expert opinion by affidavit of Dr. Deryk Slrnon James (supra Having seen 20). The State and the Comrnission had no objections to said substitution (supra Having seen 22 and 24). 9. That with regard to the witnesses and expert witnesses proposed by the Commission and the representatives, whose testimony or appearance have not been objected to by the parties, this Presidency considers it convenient to receive said evidence, in order that the Tribunal can assess its evidentiary value within the context of the body of evidence in the case, and according to the rules of sound criticismo said witnesses and expert witnesses are the following: Messrs.

Lennox Boyce, Jeffrey Joseph and Michael Huggins, and Mrs. Cynthiere Esther Atkins, as witnesses, and Professor Andrew Coyle, Baroness Vlvlen stern, Dr. Harold Hillrnan and Dr. Deryk slrnon James, as expert witnesses. This Presidency will determine infra the object of the aforementioned witnesses and expert witnesses' declarations, as well as the manner in which said evidence will be received by the Court. * * * 10.

That although the proposed expert declaration of Mr. Adrian King was not objected to by any of the parties, this Presidency has noticed from the evidence before the Court that he has represented Jeffrey Joseph, one of the alleged vlctlrns in this case, as counsel before the Caribbean Court of Justice, as well as before the Court of Appeal and the High Court of Justice of Barbados. 11.

That Article 50.1 of the Court's Rules of Procedure, read in Iight of Article 19.1 of the Court's statute, determines the grounds for disqualification that shall apply to expert witnesses. In accordance with sald provlsíons, expert witnesses "may not take part in matters in which, in the opinion of the Court, they or members of their family have a direct interest or in which they have previously taken part as agents, counsel or advocates, or as members of a national or international court or an investigatory committee, or in any other capacíty". 12.

That the evidence shows that Mr. Adrian King has participated as counsel for one of the alleged victims in the domestic proceedings during the years 2004 to 2006. Therefore, this Presidency considers that, according to Article 50.1 of the Court's Rules of Procedure and Article 19.1 of the Court's statute, Mr. Adrian King is disqualified to act as an expert witness in the present case. * * * 13.

That the state proposed the declarations of two expert witnesses, Mr. Charles Leacock and Mr. John Nurse, in its answer to the application and observations to the representatives' brief (supra Having seen 5), but did not provide their curricula vitarum until May 7, 2007 (supra Having seen 26). Nonetheless, the parties were given appropriate time to present their observations on said proposals with due consideration to the right of defense (supra Having seen 26).

In this regard, the Commission maintained that "given their capacity as civil servants, Mr. Charles Leacock and Mr. John Nurse lack the impartiality demanded of expert witnesses according to Article 19.1 or the Statute". Additionally, the Commission considered that, if admissible, said declarations should be submitted as witness testimony (supra Having seen 14).

The representatives expressed that they have no 7 objections to the States' proposal regarding the witness testimonies of Mr. Leacock and Mr. Nurse (supra Having Seen 28). 14. That the State noted the Commission's observations on the proposed expert witnesses and informed the Court of its intention to offer the oral testimonies of Mr. Charles Leacock and Mr.

John Nurse, rather than their expert witness deciarations (supra Having Seen 26). 15. That this Presidency finds that the proposed objects of their testimonies are relevant for the adjudication of the present case. Therefore, this Presidency considers it convenient to receive the testimony of Mr. Charles Leacock and Mr. John Nurse, in the manner stated in this Order's operative paragraphs, in order for the Tribunal to assess its evidentiary value within the context of the body of evidence in the case, and according to the rules of sound criticismo * * * 16.

That the representatives extemporaneously proposed the expert witness deciarations of professors William Schabas and Roger Hood in order to respond to "a number of issues which ha ve been [allegedly] raised for the very first time" by the State in its answer to the application and observations to the representatives' brief (supra Having Seen 11). 17.

That the State objected to "the need for, and appropriateness of the testimony of the two additional expert witnesses" on the ground that such proposal was time-barred and that no new arguments were raised in the State's answer. In the alternative, the State argued that the proposed expert witnesses must be disqualified, according to Articie 19(1) of the Court's Statute, since they have pursued an abolitionist agenda and have a "direct interest" in the matter.

Thus, "they lack the independence, impartiality and objectivity required for experts". 18. That the Commission had no observations with regard to the additional expert witnesses proposed by the representatives. 19. That the proceedings before thls Court, as an internationai tribunal that seeks the protection of human rights, differ from proceedings in domestic law.

This Court's procedure is iess formal and more flexible than that of the domestic systern. Nevertheless this Court's procedure allows for juridical security and for the procedural balance of the partles", For this reason, the Court, in exercise of its contentious function, has expanded faculties to receive evidence it considers necessary or pertinent. 20.

That the Court has maintained that the exception established in Articie 44(3) of the Rules of Procedure ts applicable only when the proponent alleges force tnejeure, grave impediment or supervening events", In the present case, non e of the exceptional circumstances that would justify their admission by the Court are presento However, this Presidency will decide on the admissibility of said expert opinions, taking into consideration Cf.

Case of the Saramaka Community. Order of the Presldent of the Inter-Amerícan Court of Human Rlghts of March 30, 2007, Conslderlng nlneteenth; Case of Chaparro Á/varez and Lapo Iñiguez, supra note 1, Conslderlng slxth, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al, supra note 1, Considerlng fifth, 3 Ct. Case ot the Saramaka Community, supra note 2, Consldering eleventh;

Case of Ivcher-Bronstein Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 71, and Case of Cestl Hurtado. Judgment of September 29, 1999. Series C No. 56, para. 47. 8 the object of their declarations and the usefulness of the information they may provide to the Court." 21. That Article 45(1) of the Ruies of Procedure sta tes that the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, obtain, "on its own motion, any evidence it considers helpful.

In particular, it may hear as a witness, expert witness, or in any other capacity, any person In this case, this whose evidence, statement or opinion it deerns to be relevant". Presidency deems it pertinent to adrnit the expert testimonies of professors William Schabas and Roger Hood, in appllcation of the provisions of Article 45( 1) of the Rules of Procedure, as it considers that they are usefu! for the evaluation of controversia! facts 5 and points of law.

This Presidency will determine infra the object of the declarations of the aforementioned expert witnesses, as well as the manner in which said evidence will be received by the Court. 22. That this Presidency wishes to recall that whether the declaration of an expert witness provides support for the arguments presented by one of the parties, does not per se disqualify the expert".

Furtherrnore, since the proposed expert witnesses will not gain any personal benefit by the deterrnination of facts and their legal consequences in the present case, said experts fail to meet the disqualification requirements stated under Article 19( 1) of the Court's statute." * * * 23. That the State extemporaneously proposed the witness testimony by affidavit of Mr.

Frank Thornhill in order to rebut the evidence offered by the representatives regarding hangings (supra Having Seen 26). The Commission and the representatives expressed that they had no objection to the inclusion of said witness (supra Having Seen 27 and 28). Furthermore, this Presidency finds the proposed object of this testimony to be relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the present case.

Therefore, this Presidency considers it convenient to receive the testimony of Mr. Frank Thornhill, in the manner stated in this Order's operative paragraphs, in order for the Tribunal to assess its evidentiary value within the context of the body of evidence in the case, and according to the rules of sound criticismo * * * 24. That regarding the convocation of witnesses and expert witnesses, Article 47(3) of the Rules of Procedure provides that [t]he Court may requlre, for reasons of procedural economy I that particular wltnesses and expert wltnesses offered by the partles give thelr testimony through sworn declarations 01' affidavits. 4 Ct.

Case of the Saramaka Communlty, supra note 2, Consldering eleventh; Case ot Ivcher-Bronsteln, supra note 3, para. 71, and Case of Bémece-Yelesquez, Judgment of November 25, 2000, Series e No. 70, para. 112. s er. Case of Servellón García et al. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 41; Case of Ivcher-Bronstein, supra note 3, para. 71, and Case of Cestl Hurtado, supra note 3, para. 53, 6 Cf.

Case of the Saramaka Community, supra note 2, Conslderlng seventeenth, and Case of Escué Zapata" Order of the Presldent of the Inter-Arnerlcan Court of Human Rights of December 20, 2006, Considering twentyflrst. 1 Ct. Case of Garcla Prieto et al" Order 01 the President of the Jnter-Arnertcan Court of Human Rights of December 14, 2006, Conslderlng eleventh. 9 Once the sworn declaration or affidavlt is recelved, lt shall be transmitted to the other partles in arder for them to present their observatlons 25.

That it is essential to assure the effective management of cases under the Court's consideration, whose number has grown considerably and in a constant fashion, as well as assure the determination of the truth and the most complete presentation of facts and arguments from the parties, guaranteeing them the right of defense. In view of the aboye, and in accordance with the principie of procedural economy, lt is necessary to receive the greatest possible number of testimonies by affidavit and to summon to public hearings only those witnesses and expert witnesses whose oral declaration is truly indispensable, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the object of the testimony in question. 26.

That, taking into account the statements and observations submitted by the Commission, the representatives and the State, and on the basis of the aforementioned considerations, this Presidency deems lt convenient to rece ive by affidavit the witness testimonies of Lennox Boyce, Jeffrey Joseph, Michael Huggins and Cynthiere Esther Atkins, offered by the representatives, and Frank Thornhill, offered by the State, as well as the expert opinions of Baroness Vivien Stern, proposed by both the Commission and the representatives, and Harold Hillman, William Schabas, Roger Hood and Deryk Simon James, offered by the representatives.

This Presidency will determine infra the object of their testimonies. 27. That in accordance with the right of defense and the adversarial principie, said testimonies and declarations should be transmitted to the other parties so they may submit the observations they deem pertinent in the period of time specified in the present Order (infra Operative Paragraph 2). * 28. * * That Article 47 of the Rules of Procedure stipulates that 1.

The Court shall determine when the partles are to call thelr wltnesses and expert wltnesses whom the Court considers it necessary to hear. Furthermore, the summons shall indicate the name of the wltness or expert witness as well as the object of the testlrnony. 2. The party proposlng testimonial or expert evldence shall bear the costs of the appearance of lts wltness or wltnesses befare the Tribunal. [..J 29.

That in Iight of the witnesses and expert witnesses' proposals submitted by the Commission (supra Having Seen 1 and 12, and Considering 4), the representatives (supra Having Seen 2 and 11, and Considering 13) and the State (supra Having Seen 5 and 26 and Considering 13), the object of each of the testimonies proposed, the alleged facts of the instant case, and in accordance with the principie of procedural economy, this Presidency deems ít convenient to receive in a public hearing the witness testimonies of Charles Leacock and John Nurse, offered by the State, as well as the expert oplnlon of Andrew Coyle, proposed by both the Commission and the representatives. 30.

That the appearance of the above-mentioned witnesses and expert witness in an oral proceeding will contribute to the Court's elucidation of the facts in the present case; thus, it ís appropriate to receive these testimonies in a public hearing, in accordance with Article 47(1) and (2) of the Court's Rules of Procedure. 10 * * * 31. That the Commission and the representatives have asked the Court to require the Sta te to grant the expert witnesses Professor Andrew Coyle and Baroness Vivien Stern access to Harrison's Point Temporary Prison in Barbados, so that they may prepare their respective declarations regarding prison conditions in this facility (supra Having Seen 11 and 12). 32.

That with regard to the cooperation of States with the Court, Article 24 of the Court's Rules of Procedure provides that the states parties to a case have the obligation to cooperate so as to ensure that any proceeding that the Court decides to conduct or order in the territory of said sta te is duly executed. 33. That this Presidency deems it necessary to require the State of Barbados, in accordance with Article 24(2) of the Court's Rules of Procedure, to grant Professor Andrew Coyle and Baroness Vivien Stern access to Harrison's Point Temporary Prison in Barbados, so that they may provide their expert declarations to the Court. * * * 34.

That the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State may present before the Tribunal their final oral arguments on the preliminary objection, as well as on possible merits, reparations and costs in the present case, once the witnesses and expert witness have concluded testifying. 35. That in accordance with the Court's practice, the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State may submit their final written arguments on the preliminary objection, as well as on possible merits, reparations and costs in this case, after the conclusion of the public hearing convoked by the present Order.

Now THEREFORE: THE PRESIDENT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in accordance with Articles 24(1) and 25(2) ofthe Court's Statute and Articles 4, 14(1), 24, 29(2), 40, 42, 43(3), 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51 and 52 of lts Rules of Procedure, and having consulted the other Judges of the Tribunal, DECIDES: 1. To require, for the reasons stated in the present Order (supra Considering 26) in accordance with the principie of procedural economy and pursuant to the authority granted by Article 47(3) of the Rules of Procedure, that the following persons, proposed by the Commission, the representatives and the State, render their testimonies by affidavit: 11 A) Witnesses Proposed by the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin 1, Lennox Ricardo Boyce, who will specífically testify about: (i) the reading of warrants of execution whiie his application was pending at the Inter-American system, (ii) his conditions of confinement at Glendairy Prison, and (iii) hls conditions of confinement at Harrison's Point Temporary Prison, Barbados. 2.

Jeffrey Joseph, who will specifically testify about: (i) the reading of warrants of execution while his application was pending at the Inter-American system, (ii) his conditions of confinement at Glendairy Prison, and (iii) his conditions of confinement at Harrlson's Point Temporary Prison, Barbados. 3. Michael McDonald Huggins, who will specifically testify about: (i) the reading of warrants of execution while his application was pending at the Inter-American system, (ii) his conditions of confinement at Glendairy Prison, and (iii) his conditions of confinement at Harrison's Point Temporary Prison, Barbados. 4.

Cynthiere Esther Atkins, who will specifically testify about the circumstances surrounding the death of her son, Frederick Benjamin Atkins. Proposed by the State of Barbados 5. Frank Thornhill, who will specifically testify about the mechanical procedures related to hanging. B) Expert Witnesses Proposed by the Inter-American Commission on Human representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin Rights and the 6.

Baroness Vivien stern, whose expert opinion will specifically refer to prison conditions at Glendairy Prison and at Harrison's Point Temporary Prison, both at the pre-trlal and post-conviction stages, and 12 Proposed by the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin 7. Harold Hillman, whose expert opinion will specifically refer to the practice of hanging frorn a rnedical point of view. 8.

William Schabas, whose expert opinion wiil specifically refer to: (i) the rnandatory death penalty under custornary international iaw, and (ii) Barbados as an alleged persistent objector. 9. Roger Hood, whose expert opinion will specifically refer to the status of the rnandatory death penalty in retentionist sta tes. 10. Deryk Slmon James, whose expert opinion will specifically refer to death by hanging. 2.

To require the Cornrnission, the representatives and the State to take all of the necessary measures so that the witnesses and expert witness abovementioned may render their testimonies and expert opinions, respectively, by affidavit, and send thern to the InterAmerican Court by June 18, 2007. This deadline rnay not be extended. 3. To request the Court's Secretariat, in accordance with the right of defense and the adversarial principie, to transmit the affidavits to the parties, so that they rnay subrnit the observations which they deem to be pertinent, within a period of seven days from the time the affidavit is received. This deadline may not be extended. 4.

To convoke the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State to a publlc hearing that will take place at the seat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, on July 11, 2007, starting at 9:00 a.m., in arder to receive their oral arguments on the preliminary objection and on possible rnerlts, reparations and costs in the present case, as well as testimony from the following witnesses and expert witness: A. Witnesses Proposed by the State of Barbados 1.

Charles Leacock, who will specifically testify about: (i) the legal procedures followed in prosecutions for the crime of murder, and (ii) the exercise of the prerogative of merey. 2. John Nurse, who will specifically testify about prison conditions at Glendairy Prison and at Harrison's Point Temporary Prison, both at the pre-trial and post-conviction stages. 13 B. Expert Witness Proposed by the Inter-American Commission on Human representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin Rights and the 3.

Andrew Coyte, whose expert opinion will specifically refer to prison conditions at Glendairy Prison and at Harrison's Point Temporary Prison, both at the pre-trial and post-convíctíon stages. 5. To require the State of Barbados, in accordance with Article 24(2) of the Court's Rules of Procedure, to grant Professor Andrew Coyle and Baroness Vivien Stern access to Harrison's Point Temporary Prison so they can prepare the expert testimony that will be presented to the Court. 6.

To require the State of Barbados, in accordance with Article 24(1) of the Court's Rules of Procedure, to facilitate the departure and return of the witnesses and expert witness who may reside therein and have been summoned by the present Order to testify in the public hearing in this case. 7. To require the Inter-Arnerican Commission, the representatives, and the State to notify the present Order to each witness and expert witness it has proposed and to advise each one that he or she has been summoned to testify before this Court, in accordance with Article 47(2) of the Court's Rules of Procedure. 8.

To inform the Inter-Arnerlcan Cornrnlsslon, the representatives and the State that each must cover the costs incurred in the production of the evidence that each has requested, in accordance with Article 46 of the Court's Rules of Procedure. 9. To require the Inter-Amerlcan Commission, the representatives, and the State to inform the witnesses and expert witness summoned by the Inter-Amerlcan Court of Human Rights that, in accordance with Article 52 of the Rules of Procedure, the Inter-Arnerlcan Court of Human Rights will inform States whenever those called upon to testify before this Tribunal do not appear before it or refuse to testify without a legitimate motive, or of those that, in the Court's oplnlon, ha ve violated their oath or solemn declaration, for whatever purpose foreseen in the corresponding national leqislatlon. 10.

To inform the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State that, once the witnesses and expert wltnesses have concluded their testimonies and declarations, the parties may present their final oral arguments before the Court on the prelíminary objection, as well as on possible merits, reparations and costs in the present case. 11.

To require the Secretariat of the Court, in accordance with Article 43(3) of the Rules of Procedure, to send to the Inter-Arnerican Commission, the representatives, and the State a copy of the audio recording of the public hearing in the present case. 14 12, To inform the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State that they must submit their final written arguments on the preliminary objection, as well as on possible merits, reparations and costs in the present case no later than August 13, 2007, This deadline may not be extended and is independent of the issuing of the public hearing's audio recording, 13, To require the Secretariat of the Court to notify the present Order to the InterAmerican Commission, the representatives of the alleged vlctirns and their next of kln and the State, Sergio García Ramírez President