36 107. The Commission alleged that the State had violated Article 25 of the American Convention, because the remedies provided for by law to contest the mandatory imposition of the death penalty are not appropriate for producing the result for which they have been created. Since capital punishment is imposed mandatorily, the only issue the superior court may decide is whether the accused was guilty of the crime for which it is mandatory to impose this punishment. The mandatory nature of the punishment prevents a higher court from considering whether it is an appropriate punishment for the conditions of the defendant and the circumstances of the case, and also the proportionality between the crime and the punishment. Arguments of the representatives 108. The representatives alleged that Mr. Raxcacó Reyes filed an application for amparo on August 25, 2000, which was decided by the Constitutional Court almost one year later, on July 28, 2001. This remedy was unable to produce the result for which it was created: the protection of the violated rights. Owing to the mandatory nature of the death penalty imposed, the alleged victim was denied an effective review of the judgment convicting him, thus violating the right to judicial protection. Arguments of the State 109. The State acknowledged that every person condemned to death has the right to an effective remedy to obtain commutation of sentence. Findings of the Court 110. Article 25 of the Convention stipulates that: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt remedy, or any other effective remedy, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 2. The States Parties undertake: a. to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state; b. to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and c. to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. 111. The judgment on merits delivered by the Criminal Sentencing Court, which sentenced Mr. Raxcacó Reyes to death (supra para. 43(10)) was contested by different remedies existing in Guatemala (supra paras. 43(12), 43(14) and 43(16)). The decisions delivered coincided in stating that the actions of the Sentencing Court were adapted to the criminal, constitutional and international norms applicable to the case (supra paras. 43(13), 43(15) and 43(16)). 112. The higher instances admitted for processing the remedies filed by Mr. Raxcacó Reyes’ defense lawyer and decided on them according to the law. The fact that the remedies filed were not decided favorably for the defendant’s interests do not imply that the alleged victim did not have access to an effective remedy to protect his rights.67 67 Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 1, para. 83