6 [provisional measures filed by the representatives] does not meet the requirements of the measure in itself, since not all people sentenced to death penalty have brought their cases before any body of the Inter-American system[.]. Nevertheless, the State […] does not challenge the adoption of measures in favor of those persons sentenced to death penalty, [if they] are requested apart from [this] case [...] by the InterAmerican Commission [...] or ordered ex officio by the […] Court.” The State did not submit the list requested by the Secretariat (supra Having Seen clause 20). 22. The communication of the Inter-American Commission of March 25, 2008, in which it stated that “during the last weeks […] it have received several petitions and requests for precautionary measures by the representatives of those persons sentenced to death in Guatemala, pointing out the imminence of the application of such sentence.” The Commission named 25 persons who are sentenced to death, 6 of which are fugitives. It considered that the death penalty would be imposed to "those crimes that have no punishment at the time the Convention entered into force" and to those crimes "whose classification does not meet the standards of legality defined by [the] Court.” Finally, it pointed out that “it would be pertinent for the Court to rule over the obligation of the State to provide suitable and effective legal remedies in order to review the death sentence”, which would be “part of the procedure of execution of the judgments delivered in the cases of Raxcacó and Fermín Ramírez.” Nevertheless, it stated that in the case the Court considers that the above mentioned is not the subject-matter of the monitoring compliance with the Judgments delivered in the aforesaid cases, it requests the Court to consider the Commission’s brief “as an express request for provisional measures.” CONSIDERING: 1. It is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That the State of Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978, and that it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. 3. That, pursuant to section 67 of the American Convention, State parties must fully comply with the judgments entered by the Court in time fashion. Furthermore, Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertakes to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.”1 A) Regarding the case of Fermín Ramírez 4. That, as to the obligation to hold, within a reasonable period of time, a new trial against Mr. Fermín Ramírez, satisfying the demands of the due process of law, with all the guarantees of hearings and defense for the accused (operative paragraph seven of the Judgment), the State informed that the First Trial Court for Criminal, Drugtrafficking and Environmental Offenses in and for the city of Escuintla conducted a new, oral and public trial and as a result, said Court delivered a judgment on June 21, 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para 60; Case of Gómez Palomino. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of October 18, 2007; Considering Clause seven.