State responsibility under the Convention can only be debated at the international level after the State has had the opportunity to recognize, if applicable, a violation of a right, and to repair the damage caused by its own means.70 60. In the instant case, the Court notes that the alleged violations that would eventually result from the imposition of the death penalty with respect to Mr. Rodríguez Revolorio and Mr. López Calo were recognized and remedied on July 2, 2012, the date in which the Supreme Court partially annulled the sentence imposed on them, converting the death penalty to a custodial sentence. The Court notes that, indeed, on July 2, 2012, the Supreme Court declared the appeal for review filed by Mr. Rodríguez Revolorio and Mr. López Calo admissible and decided to partially annul the sentence with respect to the death penalty, imposing on them " the immediate superior penalty to the death penalty, in force at the time of the commission of the crime, which was 30 years of non-commutable imprisonment".71 The Court further notes that the Supreme Court argued, inter alia, that, following the judgment of the Inter-American Court in the Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala case -which declared the criterion of dangerousness established in Article 132 of the Guatemalan Criminal Code to be unconstitutional-, it was obliged "by mandate of the Political Constitution of the Republic and the American Convention on Human Rights" to declare the requested review admissible.72 Therefore, the Court observes that, by virtue of the aforementioned judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of July 2, 2012, the violations caused by the imposition of the death penalty were recognized and the damage was adequately redressed insofar as the sentence imposed was modified, which in turn constituted a timely and adequate control of conventionality. In view of the foregoing, and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the Court considers that the State is not responsible for the alleged violations of the Convention that would result from the imposition of the death penalty on Mr. Rodríguez Revolorio and Mr. López Calo.73 June 22, 2016. Series C No. 31, para. 230 et seq. 70 Cf. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 143, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 99. 71 Cf. Judgment of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of July 2, 2012 (evidence file, folios 2376, 2377 and 2379). 72 In particular, the aforementioned judgment affirmed the following: "Article 68 of the Pact of San José of Costa Rica stipulates in paragraph 1 that the States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in all cases to which they are parties. A norm that in its jurisprudential and doctrinal development has been recognized as binding and self-executing norm for every State. Regardless of the compliance of the Guatemalan Legislative Power to repeal the fragment of article 132 of the Penal Code ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Guatemalan judiciary is not allowed to apply the death penalty based on the dangerousness of the perpetrator of the crime of murder. And this mandate, due to the constitutional principle of retroactivity, not only includes proceedings after the date of the Fermín Ramírez case, June of 2005, but also those previous cases in which death sentences have not yet been carried out, based on the oft-cited Article 132 of the Guatemalan criminal legislation, which would not be possible in judgments that have the authority of res judicata, but by means of the action for review, suitable for correcting a judicial error that affects public order or public interests. And this is how it must be resolved in law, and therefore the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice is obliged by mandate of the Political Constitution of the Republic and the American Convention on Human Rights to declare the present action for review admissible and to partially annul the judgment that is the subject of the action with respect to the death penalty [...] [A]s the State of Guatemala ratified the American Convention on Human Rights, it submitted to an order based on internationally recognized principles, of inexcusable application [...] [F]rom the standpoint of the Pact of San José, Costa Rica, the criminal law of a democratic society, in which the life of each and every one of the persons who inhabit it is the principal subject, the death penalty is increasingly less justifiable, and thus obliges member countries not to impose it for new crimes and to examine each case carefully, thoroughly, efficiently, and in accordance with the rule of law. Cf. Judgment of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of July 2, 2012 (evidence file, folios 2375, 2376, 2377, and 2378). 73 Cf. Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia, supra, para. 102, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador, supra, para. 80. 18