-9AGREES: Article 1. To appoint the Tribunal de Sentencia Penal, Narcoactividad y Delitos contra el Ambiente (Court for Criminal, Drug-trafficking and Environmental Offenses) in and for Escuintla, composed of […], so that it may preside over proceedings number sixty-four dash ninety-seven against defendant Fermín Ramírez o Fermín Ramírez Ordóñez, charged with the crime of aggravated rape based on the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of the twentieth day of June of the year two thousand and five. Article 2. The Secretariat of the Supreme Court of Justice must forward a transcription of this Agreement to the appointed court together with a certified copy of the supreme final decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, so that it may comply with its provisions within the stipulated term. Article 3. The Tribunal de Sentencia Penal, Narcoactividad y Delitos contra el Ambiente (Court for Criminal, Drug-trafficking and Environmental Offenses) in and for Escuintla shall timely inform the Supreme Court of Justice about the progress made in the proceedings according to the provisions of Operative Paragraph fifteen (15) of the judgment of the twentieth day of June of the year two thousand and five delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Done at the Courthouse, in the city of Guatemala, this twenty-third day of the month of January of the year two thousand and six. 10. That, based on the foregoing, the parties informed that on June 21, 2006, the Tribunal de Sentencia Penal, Narcoactividad y Delitos contra el Ambiente (Court for Criminal, Drug-trafficking and Environmental Offenses) in and for Escuintla sentenced Fermín Ramírez to 40 years imprisonment on the count of aggravated rape. Said conviction is not final, for the defense raised a special motion of appeal which is still pending resolution. As regards the requirements that the new proceedings should meet (i.e. to conduct said proceedings within a reasonable time, satisfying the demands of the due process of law, with all the guarantees of hearings and defense for the accused), the representatives failed to inform whether during the proceedings said requirements were met or not. In fact, the representatives informed that the defense raised a motion of appeal based on the sole assertion that Court must have imposed the minimum sentence. 11. That, in this regard, the Court expresses its satisfaction with the progress made by the State in complying with the related provisions of the above mentioned Judgment. Nevertheless, while the obligation to refrain from executing Ramírez is independent of the outcome of the new proceedings and the death penalty is inapplicable vis-à-vis the crime for which defendant was prosecuted and convicted, due to the fact that the new proceedings are still pending, this Court deems it convenient to continue monitoring compliance with the Judgment in connection with Operative Paragraphs seven, nine, fourteen until full observance thereof has been verified. 12. That in the reports submitted by the State no reference was made to the obligation to refrain from applying Article 132 of the Criminal Code regarding to the dangerousness of the agent, and adapt said rule to the Convention within a reasonable time. The representatives mentioned that a duly presented bill to abolish the death penalty and, in particular, to amend said article was rejected by the Committee of Legislation and Constitutional Affairs of the National Congress. In turn, the Court expresses its concern about the information supplied by the representatives with regard to the judgment of June 15, 2006 delivered by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice dismissing the request for review filed by the defendant against the death penalty sentence based on the application of the greater dangerousness of the agent doctrine. In this regard, the Court deems it