001353 1O2. With particular respect to the mandatory imposition of the death sentence for murder, it is worth referring to the matter of Eversley Thompson St. Vincent & the Grenadines v. where the United Nations Human Rights Committee was called to determine the Applicant's claim that the mandatory nature of the imposition of the death sentence and its application in the circumstances constituted an arbitrary deprivation of life. The Committee concluded that "such a system of mandatory capital punishment deprives the complainant of the most fundamental right, the right to life, without considering whether this exceptional form of punishment is appropriate in the circumstances of his or her cause'. The Committee consequenfly found that the "carrying out the death penalty in the author's case would constitute an arbitrary deprivation of his life in violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant" because it did not take into account the particular situation of the offender.26 103. The Court also notes that, in interpreting Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has put greater emphasis on due process by holding in the matter of Hilaire, Constantine & Benjamin v. Trinidad & Tobago that some limitations apply to states that have not abolished the death penalty. These limitations include that "... application is subject to certain procedural requirements" to be stricfly observed", and "... certain considerations involving the person of the defendant ...".27 The Court concluded that by "automatically and generically mandating the death penalty for murder, the Respondent's law is arbitrary in terms of Article 4(1) of the American Convention.2s 1O4. From the foregoing, this Court finds that whether deprivation of life is arbitrary within the meaning of Article 4 of the charter should be assessed 26 See Article 6(2), ICCPR; and Eversley Thompson v. St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Comm. No. 806/1998, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C70IO/806/1998 (2000) (U.N.H.C.R.), 8.2. 27 Hilaire, constantine & Benjamin v. Trinidad & Tobago, tnter-Am. ct. H.R. (ser. c) No. 94 (June 21, 100. See also Boyce &Joseph v. Barbados, tnter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 169 (Nov.20, S ?00?), 2007). 28 Hilaire, Constantine & Benjamin v. Trinidad & fobago, S 103 29 &