16 principle according to which, in the sphere of human rights, international treaties and conventions prevail over ordinary domestic laws; that, according to Article 46 of the Guatemalan Constitution and Article 4(2) of the American Convention, the death penalty should not be imposed, since the punishment should be proportionate to the damage caused and not in excess of this; that the principle of the proportionality of the punishment had been contravened and Articles 3 and 19 of the Guatemalan Constitution had been violated, because the victim of the alleged kidnapping had not died, and that the sentence imposed was not in keeping with the law. 43(13) On September 13, 1999 the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeal declared that the appeal filed by Mr. Raxcacó Reyes was inadmissible (supra para. 43(12)). Regarding the alleged failure to respect Article 4(2) of the American Convention, the ruling stated that: This Court considers that the said Article of the […] Pact [of San José] authorizes the application of the death penalty for the most serious crimes, and for those crimes for which it was already established before the entry into force of the Pact of San José. It is well known that the crime of kidnapping or abduction already provided for this punishment when a victim died, and this was so as of the promulgation of Decree [No.] 17-73 of the Congress of the Republic; and since the American Convention on Human Rights was ratified subsequently, becoming law for Guatemala as of the promulgation of Decree [No.] 6-78 of the Congress of the Republic, it is therefore clearly established that Article 201 of Decree [No.] 17-73 and its reforms are fully applicable to the case that concerns us; moreover, there is no violation of the provisions of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic, because there is no conflict between domestic law and the provisions of the said human rights treaty; consequently, it is concluded that the higher tribunal acted correctly and based on the law in force in the country, because the crime prosecuted is extremely serious and the death penalty has been established for it since 1973.18 43(14) Messrs. Raxcacó Reyes, Ruiz Fuentes and Murga Rodríguez filed an appeal for annulment of the judgment delivered by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeal (supra para. 43(13)). Mr. Raxcacó Reyes alleged that the Court of Appeal had disregarded Articles 3, 19 and 46 of the Guatemalan Constitution and Article 4(2) of the American Convention, by extending and applying the death penalty to crimes for which the law had not established it at the time when Guatemala ratified the said international instrument.19 43(15) On July 20, 2000, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declared inadmissible the appeals for annulment that had been filed (supra para. 43(14)).20 The Supreme Court of Justice indicated that: When the American Convention on Human Rights came into force, [Article 201 of the Penal Code] already established the death penalty and, even with the reforms included in Decrees [Nos.] 14-95 [supra para. 46] and 81-96 [supra para. 47] of the Congress of the Republic, the structure of this type of crime has not been modified, because it continues to individualize the same conducts that it prohibited before these decrees and, under specific conditions, the death penalty was already imposed.21 Cf. judgment delivered by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Guatemala on September 13, 1999 (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 9, folios 185-186). 18 19 Cf. judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of Justice on July 20, 2000 (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 10, folios 208 and 216). 20 Cf. judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of Justice on July 20, 2000 (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 10, folios 199 and 221). 21 Cf. judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of Justice on July 20, 2000 (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 10, folio 219).