53 appeal for pardon was denied without the existence of a provision that regulated a specific process; c) in an Advisory Opinion of September 22, 1993 the Constitutional Court ruled that Decree Number 159 was revoked and therefore “the measure of grace included in [the] Decree […] was not valid, but the measure of grace is, in virtue of international treaties;” d) by revoking Decree Number 159 of the Legislative Assembly, the State failed to comply with the duty to establish an appeal that allows the convicted party to request pardon, commutation of the sentence, or amnesty; currently no indictee for crimes punished with the death penalty can request pardon, since a process has not been established for this purpose; e) the new law of the Executive Body of 1997 does not contemplate the power of a Ministry or the President of the Republic to know of and decide upon a measure of grace. The latter did not have legal or specific procedural powers to process the pardon. Despite this legal gap, it admitted into process the request for pardon and issued a definitive ruling, which makes it null and void by law; f) the new request for pardon presented by Mr. Fermín Ramírez can not be processed or ruled upon due to the existing legal gap with regard to the procedure and authority that must know of the appeal; and g) the State did not guarantee an effective procedure to grant the accused party amnesty, pardon, or commutation of the sentence, thus failing to comply with the requirements established in Article 4(6) of the Convention, in relation with Article 1(1) of the same. 101. Arguments of the State: a) there was no violation to Article 4 of the American Convention, since the process was substantiated respecting the judicial guarantees; b) Mr. Fermín Ramírez made effective his right to request pardon, enshrined in Article 4(6) of the American Convention, which establishes the power and the obligation to grant it; c) The fact that the pardon presented was decided negatively does not breach the right enshrined in the Convention; and d) it has guaranteed that the death penalty will not be executed while the case is being processed before the Inter-American System of Human Rights, in compliance of the precautionary and provisional measures issued. Considerations of the Court 102. Article 4 of the American Convention states: 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.