24 Findings of the Court 54. In this case, the Court has been called on to determine whether the imposition of the death penalty on Mr. Raxcacó Reyes was carried out in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of the American Convention, which establishes that: 1. Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. 2. In countries that have not abolished the death penalty, it may be imposed only for the most serious crimes and pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court and in accordance with a law establishing such punishment, enacted prior to the commission of the crime. The application of such punishment shall not be extended to crimes to which it does not presently apply. […] 6. Every person condemned to death shall have the right to apply for amnesty, pardon, or commutation of sentence, which may be granted in all cases. Capital punishment shall not be imposed while such a petition is pending decision by the competent authority. 55. The proceedings against Mr. Raxcacó Reyes originated in the kidnapping of a child. In this regard, it should be reiterated that the Court is not a criminal tribunal in which the criminal responsibility of the individual can be examined;38 this task corresponds to the domestic courts. The Court emphasizes the obligation that States have to protect all persons, avoiding crime, punishing those responsible, and maintaining public order, particularly in the case of facts such as those that gave rise to the criminal proceedings against Mr. Raxcacó Reyes, in the understanding that a State’s fight against crime must be carried out within limits and according to procedures that allow both public safety and full respect for human rights to be preserved.39 56. Even though the Convention does not expressly prohibit the application of the death penalty, the respective treaty-based norms should be interpreted in terms of “delimit[ing] strictly its application and scope, in order to reduce the application of the penalty and bring about its gradual disappearance.”40 i) 57. that: Expansion of the list of crimes punishable by the death penalty When interpreting Article 4(2) of the American Convention, this Court stated 38 Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 1, para. 63; Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al.. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 90, and Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.). Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 71. 39 Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 1, para. 63; Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al., Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 101; Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 174; Case of Durand and Ugarte. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 69, and Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al., supra note 39, paras. 89 and 204. 40 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al., supra note 39, para. 99, and Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC3/83 of September 8, 1983. Series A No. 3, para. 57.