8 Code of Criminal Proceedings, nor did it justify an inaudita altera pars proceeding, which could not be considered adequate pursuant to the articles […] of the mentioned Code […]9 The Constitutionality Court added that “without failing in any way to acknowledge the authority of the Judgment issued by the InterAmerican Court,” “it is necessary that the challenged Court offer legal grounds for the decision regarding the amparo.” Taking into account the aforementioned, the Constitutionality Court “[g]rant[ed] the amparo” and “definitively suspended, with regard to the petitioner, the decision issued by the Supreme Court” in which it declared the nullity of the dismissal (supra para. 9(b)). Additionally, the Constitutionality Court ordered that the Supreme Court issue a new ruling “taking into account [said] judgment” of the Constitutionality Court, indicating that “in case of non-compliance” the corresponding “legal responsibilities” would ensue. 12. The Supreme Court, taking into account the domestic legislation regarding the amparo recourse, according to which “the challenged authority must comply with the corresponding effects of the amparo that the Constitutional Court indicates in the operative paragraphs,” decided “[t]o annul the ruling” issued on December 11, 2009 (supra Considering 9(b)) and declared “the request for Execution of the Judgment of the Inter-American Court,” filed by the Public Prosecutors’ Office,10 to be “[u]nfounded” (supra Considering Clause 9(a)). 13. 9 Cf. ruling issued on August 25, 2010, by the Constitutionality Court of Guatemala, case file 5482010 (dossier on monitoring compliance, volume II, folios 1026 through 1028). 10 The Criminal Chamber also “[lifted]” the order of September 17, 2010, issued by said Chamber, in which it stated that “[t]he self-execution order of this Chamber, clashes, according to the Constitutionality Court, with guarantees provided for in Article 8 of the American Convention […], which is prioritized by the Constitutional Court of the Nation; but we cannot ignore that the international judgment established the non-compliance by the State of Guatemala with the duty […] to effectively prosecute, which makes evident the interpretation conflict in the judgments described, and the need for clarification.” The Criminal Chamber indicated that “given the different national rulings that motivated this judgment, in our opinion, they can only be solved by the supreme body that issued the judgment,” since “the Constitutionality Court and the Criminal Chamber […] have acted in accordance with International Law.” Therefore, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court expressed in said lifted order that, “without promoting non-observance of the order of the Constitutionality Court, when confronted with the doubt caused by the question of which is the applicable solution and who should be given the due obedience, in order to solve the legal dilemma […], the Criminal Chamber is compelled to request an interpretation from the Inter-American Court […], prior to issuing the corresponding decision.” The Criminal Chamber indicated that “[d]espite the aforementioned,” “it acknowledges and it is aware of the terms indicated in Article 67 of the American Convention,” however “the present case is exceptional in nature since [the Criminal Chamber], based on Article 2 of the mentioned Convention, considers that it has complied with that ordered by the Inter-American Court […] in the judgment on merits issued ten years ago, since the conditions necessary to obey it were not present.” The order ended by requesting that the Presidential Commission in charge of Coordinating the Executive’s Policies in Human Rights Matter (COPREDEH) “present, as part of the proceeding to monitor compliance with the judgment of the Inter-American Court […], the communication between the International Court and the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme court […], as well as creating mechanisms to make the request for interpretation requested viable.” Cf. decision issued on September 17, 2010, by the Criminal Chamber of the