it could not fully guarantee the life and integrity of one who was not directly under the State’s custody.5 17. On November 16, 2005, the representatives reported that out of the 19 people who escaped from prison, “three have been arrested and another three were executed upon arrest, including Mr. Ruiz Fuentes.” 6 18. On July 4, 2006, considering that “the obligations of the State set forth in these provisional measures regarding Mr. Hugo Humberto Ruiz Fuentes ceased due to his death,”7 the Court decided to consider the provisional measures adopted to benefit him closed. IV. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES 1. Position of the petitioners 19. On January 2, 2003, the petitioners requested that Mr. Ruiz Fuentes be added as an alleged victim in case Nº 12.402 (Ronald Ernesto Raxcacó Reyes), because “the circumstances surrounding Mr. Ruiz’s death sentence were exactly the same as those of Mr. Raxcacó, and the allegations of fact and law were the same in both cases.”8 20. On October 8, 2003 (date of adoption of Report No. 49/03 in the Raxcacó Reyes Case), the IACHR directed that a separate petition be opened; this was done on July 26, 2004. 21. On November 10, 2006, the petitioners alleged the following facts: 1) That at the time of his arrest, Mr. Ruiz Fuentes was tortured by members of the security forces, and 2) That in the course of the capture of escaped prisoners, Mr. Ruiz Fuentes was summarily executed by members of the police on November 14, 2005. 22. Concerning the death sentence, the petitioners say it is necessary to take into account the observations of the Inter-American Court in the Raxcacó Reyes case, since Mr. Ruiz Fuentes was sentenced during the same trial and under the same circumstances, “with the death penalty imposed for the same purpose and cause.” 9 On this matter, they consider that there was a violation of Article 4 of the American Convention, because the State sentenced Mr. Ruiz Fuentes to death for the crime of kidnapping or abduction contemplated in Article 201 of the Penal Code, as amended by Decree Nº 81/96, which extended capital punishment to all cases of kidnapping or abduction (regardless of the victims, the circumstances surrounding the facts, and the outcome),10 whereas it had previously only applied to cases that resulted in death. The petitioners also raised several considerations made by the Court in the abovementioned sentence, among them the following: 82. In view of the above, the Court concludes that Article 201 of the Guatemalan Penal Code, on which the sentence of Mr. Raxcacó Reyes was based, violated the 5 I-A Court, Provisional Measures Raxcacó Reyes. Order of the Court of July 4, 2006. Para 14. 6 I-A Court, Provisional Measures Raxcacó Reyes. Order of the Court of July 4, 2006. Para 17. 7 I-A Court, Provisional Measures Raxcacó Reyes. Order of the Court of July 4, 2006. Preamble Nº 7. 8 IACHR, Report on Merits Nº 49/03, Case 12.402 Ronald Ernesto Raxcacó Reyes, Guatemala, October 8, 2003. Presentation of the petitioners of January 2, 2003. 9 Communication of the petitioners received on November 10, 2007. 10 Communication of the petitioners received on November 10, 2007. 4