students to exercise defense results in an aggravated violation of the right to technical assistance, considering that the cases could end with the death penalty sentence. 102. In addition, and notwithstanding that the violation of the right of defense was materialized by itself by the appointment of students as ex officio defenders, the Commission notes that the detrimental consequences of these appointments were reflected in the specific case. For instance, according to the record, in its Order of July 29, 1993, the Court decided to receive the statements of three people; however due diligence could not be achieved because Roberto Girón’s defender did not follow the legal formalities for submitting to the judge the list of questions that he would ask witnesses. 103. The Commission further notes that none of the multiple remedies exhausted by the alleged victims, carried out a control of the process in terms of due process violations outlined in this section. Therefore, Messrs. Girón and Castillo were in a situation of defenselessness in this respect. 104. For the above reasons, the Commission concludes that the Guatemalan State is responsible for the violation to the Right to a Fair Trial established in Article 8(2)(c) and 8(2)(e) of the American Convention to the detriment of Roberto Girón and Pedro Castillo Mendoza in connection to the obligations set forth in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same Convention. C. Right to Humane Treatment76 and relevant provisions of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture77 in relation to the “the execution method 1. General Considerations on certain methods of execution and their compatibility with human rights law 105. The Commission notes that even though the American Convention does not prohibit the death penalty, various organs have considered that an execution method is incompatible with the right to humane treatment and the prohibition of torture when it is not designed to inflict the least possible suffering78. 106. The Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment has stated that public executions increase the cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment that is characteristic of the death penalty and could only have a dehumanizing effect over the victim, as well as a brutal effect on the 76 Article 5 of the American Convention establishes in the relevant: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. 77 Articles 1 and 6 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture set forth: Article 1. The State Parties undertake to prevent and punish torture in accordance with the terms of this Convention. Article 6. In accordance with the terms of Article 1, the States Parties shall take effective measures to prevent and punish torture within their jurisdiction. The States Parties shall ensure that all acts of torture and attempts to commit torture are offenses under their criminal law and shall make such acts punishable by severe penalties that take into account their serious nature. The States Parties likewise shall take effective measures to prevent and punish other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment within their jurisdiction. 78 In that respect, guideline xi) of the “UE Guidelines on Death Penalty” establishes that “Where capital punishment occurs, it shall be carried out so as to inflict the minimum possible suffering. It may not be carried out in public or in any other degrading manner EU Guidelines on the Death Penalty: revised and updated version. 18