7 relevance in light of the State’s arguments. Accordingly, the Court admits annexes 18, 20, 32, 35, 37, and 38. B. Admissibility of testimonial and expert evidence 22. This Court finds it appropriate to admit the joint expert opinion provided by affidavit, 14 insofar as it is in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring it, as well as with the purpose of this case. 23. The State presented separate observations on the statements made by the relatives of Manuel Martínez Coronado.15 This Court notes that in its observations on the statements, the State contests their content, so the Court understands that this does not challenge their admissibility but rather their probative value. Accordingly, this Court admits the statements made by Manuela Girón, Rony Disrael Martínez Girón, Irma Yojana Martínez Girón, and Marleny Girón, which will be considered insofar as they are in keeping with the ordered purpose, bearing in mind the State’s observations. VI FACTS 24. In this chapter, the Court will establish the facts of the case based on the factual framework submitted by the Inter-American Commission, bearing in mind especially the absence of factual disputes between the arguments of the Commission, the representatives, and the State. These facts will be presented in the following order: A) legal context in Guatemala and B) facts related to the personal circumstances of the alleged victim, as well as the criminal trial and the execution of Manuel Martínez Coronado. A. Legal context in Guatemala A.1. Laws in force in Guatemala at the time of the facts 25. Article 18 of the Constitution of Guatemala establishes the possibility of imposing a death sentence.16 Article 43 of the Criminal Code states that the death penalty “is an extraordinary The Court received the expert opinion provided by affidavit by the expert witnesses Parvais Jabbar and Edward Fitzgerald. 15 The Court received statements made by affidavit from Manuela Girón, Rony Disrael Martínez Girón, Irma Yojana Martínez Girón, and Marleny Girón. Regarding Manuela Girón, the State noted that her responses “are untruthful and are a bad faith attempt to attribute to the Guatemalan state criminal responsibility for the execution of Mr. Martínez Coronado,” and it asked that “questions 7, 8, and 9 not be taken into account as they were not answered in accordance with the questions asked.” Likewise, regarding the statements of Rony Disrael Martínez Girón, Irma Yojana Martínez Girón, and Marleny Girón, the State argued that “the State of Guatemala cannot be held internationally responsible for having enforced its domestic legal order or for wrongs suffered by supposed relatives due to the execution of Mr. Martínez Coronado.” 14 Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala decreed by the Constituent Assembly on May 31, 1985, Amended by Popular Consultation Legislative Agreement 18-93 “Article 18. Death penalty. The death penalty may not be imposed in the following cases: a. On the basis of presumptions; b. On women; c. On those older than sixty years of age; d. On those convicted of political crimes and common crimes connected with political ones; or 16