-10convenient to highlight that the scope of the decision made by the Court in Operative Paragraph eight of the Judgment is general insofar the source of this type of reparation is the violation by the State of Article 9 of the Convention in relation to Article 2 thereof, for having failed to set aside Article 132 of the Criminal Code after ratification by Guatemala of said treaty. In other words, according to the provisions of paragraphs 81 and 90 to 98 of the Judgment, the application of the dangerousness of the agent doctrine to the case and the imposition of certain punishments should be deemed incompatible with the freedom from Ex Post Facto Laws and, therefore, contrary to the Convention. Thus, the reparation so ordered provides, on the one hand, for the obligation of criminal judicial authorities of the State to refrain from applying Article 132 of the Criminal Code of Guatemala regarding to the dangerousness of the agent either to Fermín Ramírez or to any other individual prosecuted, accused or convicted for the same crime.5 On the other hand, such is the source of the obligation of the Guatemalan legislature to amend said rule within a reasonable time so that the freedom from Ex Post Facto Laws is respected by repealing any reference to the dangerousness of the agent. Therefore, the Court deems it imperative that the State furnish details of the measures adopted in compliance with the above-mentioned issue and inform whether the domestic criminal courts still apply said part of the referenced rule. 13. That, as regards Operative Paragraph ten of the Judgment, which refers to the duty to implement a procedure that guarantees that whoever is sentenced to the death penalty will be entitled to request a pardon or commutation of the sentence, the State informed that “the legal framework of the measure of grace or pardon has already been addressed" and that the Committee of Legislation and Constitutional Affairs of the National Congress "issued a supporting report containing amendments to Bill number 32045, which provides for the approval of the Ley Reguladora del Recurso de Gracia (Framework Law on the Measure of Grace)." The representatives ratified said information, but expressed that the bill has technical deficiencies in contradiction to constitutional principles and that in several cases the sentence was commuted, but not as a result of a motion for pardon, but through an appeal for review based on the judgments delivered in the cases of Fermín Ramírez and Raxcacó Reyes. The Commission expressed its satisfaction with the progress made in connection therewith and stated that the State should address the alleged unconstitutionality issue regarding the bill. In this regard, it is worth noting that, in monitoring compliance with the obligations imposed on the State by the above mentioned Judgment, the obligation to adopt or amend domestic rules in particular, it is not incumbent on the Court to determine the compatibility of domestic legislation, or its amendment, with the Constitution or other domestic legal rules in force in the particular State, but to control that they are compatible with the provisions of a Judgment delivered under the American Convention. In the instant case, the Court expresses its satisfaction with the progress described by the State, but considers that the State must provide further details. Moreover, the Court wishes to call to mind that, under the provisions of Operative Paragraph ten, until said procedure is implemented the State must refrain from executing any person sentenced to death who has applied for a pardon or sentence commutation. Similarly, the Court imposed on the State the obligation to amend an Article of the Criminal Code under Operative Paragraph number six of the Judgment on the merits, reparations and costs in the Case of Raxcacó-Reyes v. Guatemala as follows: “[w]hile the above mentioned amendments are still pending, the State must refrain from applying the death penalty and execute convicted prisoners for the crime of kidnapping and abduction, as set forth in paragraph 132 of the […] Judgment.” Cf. Case of RaxcacóReyes. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133. 5