13. The petitioner explains that in the case at hand, no attempt was made to secure clemency or commutation of sentence from the President of the Republic because the Guatemalan Congress had only some time before repealed Decree 159, the precept governing such remedies. B. The State 14. In its written reply of May 23, 2002, the State said that the petition should not be admitted because the remedies offered by domestic jurisdiction have not yet been exhausted. It bases this stance on statements made by Public Defender Ovidio Girón in a meeting with COPREDEH officials on April 9 of this year and on “the comments of the petitioners themselves.” In its submission the State does not identify the remedies that have not been exhausted. In its reply it also informs the Commission that it will not be making any further statements on this case since, in its view, it entails no violations attributable to it. 15. As regards the characterization of violations of the American Convention, the State argues that under Guatemalan law, the death sentence can only be imposed at a trial carried out in strict observance of all guarantees of due process and that in the instant case, Ronald Raxacacó did have access to an independent and impartial tribunal and did pursue all means of defense necessary to challenge the courts’ decisions. The State points out that the proceedings before the court that imposed the death sentence were conducted within the strictest legal framework and that there are consequently no grounds for arguing that his rights were arbitrarily threatened. 16. Finally, the State maintains that Mr. Raxacacó, who was tried and found guilty in each and every proceeding brought against him, made use of the mechanisms for rebuttal provided by Guatemalan criminal procedure in order to defend his rights. The State claims that “this case now stands as res judicata.” IV. ANALYSIS A. Preliminary Considerations 17. The IACHR notes that in its reply of May 23, 2002, the State informed the Commission that it would not be making any further statement regarding this petition since, in its view, it contains no violations attributable to it. The IACHR wishes to note that the State of Guatemala has contracted a series of international obligations under the American Convention on Human Rights. These obligations include furnishing such information that the IACHR requires in compliance with the powers granted by Article 48(1)(a) of the Convention. 3 18. In connection with this, the IACHR believes it should also point out that it uses the information requested at the different procedural stages described in its Rules of Procedure to ground its decisions regarding the petitions or cases brought before it. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has ruled that cooperation by states is a basic obligation in international proceedings under the inter-American system, to wit: In contrast to domestic criminal law, in proceedings to determine human rights violations the State cannot rely on the defense that the complainant has failed to present evidence when it cannot be obtained without the State’s cooperation. 3 Article 48(1)(a) of the Convention provides as follows:When the Commission receives a petition or communication (…) a) it shall request information from the government of the state indicated as being responsible for the alleged violations (…) This information shall be submitted within a reasonable period (…). b) The Commission may request the states concerned to furnish any pertinent information. 3