B. Position of the State 15. In general terms, the State indicated that its position regarding the death penalty is that the sentence can be applied when it has been the result of a process carried out in strict observance of all due process guarantees. It argued that the convictions of the alleged victims were the result of processes in which such guarantees were respected. 16. In the terms of the requirements for the admissibility of the petition, the State did not allege lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies. It instead indicated that all the remedies exercised by the alleged victims were decided in compliance with all due process guarantees and that the death penalty sentence was executed after the exhaustion of the ordinary and extraordinary remedies by the alleged victims. It argued that in this case prompt and proper justice was applied, in accordance with the speed that judicial proceedings must have. 17. The State maintained that no violations to the Rights to a Fair Trial and to Judicial Protection were committed, because: (a) the defense was appointed ex officio as the alleged victims did not appoint defense lawyers within the time period granted, and even though the defense were students, this was allowed by law, and they were at all times advised by their University Legal Aid Clinic; (b) the defense had the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses after the decision to indict the alleged victims was made; and (c) the criminal responsibility of the alleged victims was established in accordance to the law. 18. The State argued that it did not violate the Right to Life, as the death penalty was sentenced for perpetrating a serious crime established by law at the time, which does not breach the American Convention. 19. Guatemala indicated that it did not breach the duty to adopt provisions to give Domestic Legal Effects to the rights and freedoms of the Convention, because even though the process took place under the term of Decree 52-73,3 this Decree aimed to investigate an event established to be a crime or offense and the possible participation of those accused. IV. ADMISSIBILITY ANALYSIS A. The Commission’s ratione materiae, ratione personae, ratione temporis and ratione loci competence 20. The petitioners have standing under Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge petitions. In addition, the alleged victims are individuals that were subject to the jurisdiction of the Guatemalan State at the time of the events alleged. Therefore, the Commission has competence ratione personae to examine the petition. The Commission has competence ratione loci to study this petition insofar it alleges violations to the American Convention that are said to have taken place in the territory of a State party to the Convention. The IACHR has competence ratione materiae as the petition refers to alleged violations of the American Convention. 21. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione temporis as Guatemala ratified the American Convention on May 25, 1978, and also ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture on December 10, 1986. Therefore, the obligation to respect and ensure the rights recognized in both treaties was in force for the State at the time the events are said to have occurred. 3 Code of Criminal Proceedings of 1973 which granted investigative faculties to the judge in criminal proceedings. 3