certainty as to its determination: determination that obviously starts from the facts evaluated as evidence by the sentencing court: control of said facts that, as already stated, cannot be reviewed by this court. It is only possible to be reviewed by means of this appeal, when the Court has not respected the norm that grants it this discretionary power; c) The sentencing court did set the death penalty within the legal assumptions prescribed by the law on the matter. The way in which it reached that punitive conclusion cannot be established by this Court of Appeals, given that the sentencing court made its analysis based on the evidence that it directly assessed, given that it was examined during the oral proceedings. Consequently, the articles of the Criminal Code cited by the appellant were not violated."43 (ii) Cassation 44. Rodríguez Revolorio, López Calo, and Archila Pérez filed an appeal in cassation against the judgment issued by the Tenth Chamber of the Court of Appeals, alleging that the judgment issued by the Court of Appeals was defective in form and substance.44 On February 10, 1997, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (hereinafter "Supreme Court") declared the appeals in cassation inadmissible. 45 (iii) Writ of amparo 45. On March 14, 1997, Messrs. Rodríguez Revolorio, López Calo, and Archila Pérez filed a writ of amparo before the Constitutional Court against the judgment that denied the appeals in cassation, alleging violation of the right to defense and the right to due process and petition.46 On June 18, 1997, the Constitutional Court denied the appeal,47 arguing that the Supreme Court "did not violate the applicants' alleged rights and ruled in accordance with its legal powers".48 (iv) Appeals for review and subsequent commutation of sentence Judgment of the Tenth Chamber of the Court of Criminal Appeals, Drug Trafficking and Crimes against the Environment, September 2, 1996 (evidence file, folios 219 and 220). 44 Cf. Judgment of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of February 10, 1997, joined cassation appeals no. 116-96, 117-96 and 118-96 (evidence file, folios 225 to 240). 45 With respect to the appellants' argument that the appealed judgment did not conclusively state the facts that the judge considered proven and the grounds of sound judicial discretion, the Supreme Court indicated that "the appealed judgment merely upheld the judgment handed down in the first instance, without making any pronouncement on the facts considered proven, nor on the grounds of sound judicial discretion that were taken into account in that decision. With respect to the alleged contradiction of facts, the Supreme Court argued that such a situation could not arise in the second instance, since the court "did not analyze or rule on the facts that had been considered proven. Likewise, in response to the appellants' argument on the merits that the appealed judgment considered a decisive fact to have been proven without that fact having been proven, the Supreme Court considered that "upon examining the second instance judgment, it can be seen that the Chamber fully respected the facts that the sentencing court considered proven" and that "it did not consider any other decisive fact to have been proven, nor did it prove any other decisive fact other than those that the sentencing court considered proven and that would have served to acquit, convict, mitigate, or aggravate the sentence imposed on the three convicted persons, so it could not have committed the error referred to in this section of the law.” Cf. Judgment of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of February 10, 1997, joined cassation appeals Nos. 116-96, 117-96, and 118-96 (evidence file, folios 235, 236, and 238). 46 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court sitting as Extraordinary Court of Amparo of June 18, 1997 (evidence file, folio 242). 47 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court sitting as Extraordinary Court of Amparo of June 18, 1997 (evidence file, folios 242 to 250). The Court notes that, although the appellants filed the amparo action out of time, it was admitted because it dealt with the execution of the death penalty. Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court sitting as Extraordinary Court of Amparo of June 18, 1997 (evidence file, folios 248 and 249). 48 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court sitting as Extraordinary Court of Amparo of June 18, 1997 (evidence file, folio 249). 43 14