7 However, the State manifested that, as a consequence of the order to reopen the investigation issued by the Supreme Court (supra Considering 9(c)), former army colonel Julio Roberto Alpírez filed a recourse for amparo before the Constitutionality Court arguing that since there is a dismissal in his favor “the proceeding cannot be reopened [nor] can he be subject to a new […] criminal prosecution.” In said appeal, the accused argued that his “right to a defense, as well as the juridical principles of due process, imperativeness, equality, and basis” were not being recognized, since the decision that declared the dismissal of the criminal prosecution against him was not appealed or objected to by any of the parties, it used “proceedings that are not legally pre-established, varying the types of proceeding,” and stated the Judgment of the Inter-American Court “can never be considered superior to the Constitution” and “it is not enforceable against legal precepts in force,” such as those of the Code of Criminal Procedures. Upon resolving this recourse for amparo, on August 25, 2010, the Constitutionality Court of Guatemala considered that: 11. there is evidence of a discrepancy between the Inter-American Court’s decision […] and the Supreme Court’s decision […] since in the content of [the judgment of the Inter-American Court] there is no clear notion that leads to the conclusion that the dismissal is fraudulent, as sustained by the Public Prosecutors’ Office. Thus, there are no grounds to declare the nullity of the [dismissal], since in order to […] reach the conclusion that the decision of March eighth of nineteen ninety nine, which closed the […] case file, was issued in fraud of the law, it is necessary that there be a proceeding that provides enough evidence on the ineffectiveness of the order granted. To date such proceeding has not been executed. The “self-execution” of the annulment of the dismissal, without an express order, favors accusation in violation of the postulates of the right to a defense […]. This Tribunal highlights, as an example, as backgrounds facts related to the verdict issued in another case, how the Inter-American Court […] has clearly ordered in its operative paragraphs what the States must do, and thus in the case of “Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala” […] it ruled [that] the State nullify the judgment imposed […] and, without the need for a new process, issue another judgment that in no terms could be the death penalty” […], as can be assessed, the decision in the related judgment differs from that analyzed in this case, given that the other one orders the reopening of procedural phases carried out in the corresponding case file. It should be noted that the judgment […] in the case of “Bámaca Velásquez” […] lacks the effects ordered by the Supreme Court […] especially regarding the annulment of the dismissal order and the judicial actions, which thus makes it ineffective. The challenged authority does not have, at this time, any justification to grant the annulment of the […] order of dismissal; therefore that [ordered by the Supreme Court] is not a true basis or based on the same ratio, since offering grounds for a judicial ruling means giving the reason, explanation, or justification of the impulse based on which a decision is made in one sense or the other. By not acting in this way, the postulant’s constitutional rights are violated [… since the] courts’ obligation to justify its decisions has been acknowledged as a guarantee of the right to a due legal process […]. [T]he ruling of the Supreme Court […] without indicating […] the instance that promoted it, omitted in its grounds the legal causes for which said court assumed the jurisdiction and competence to issue it, indicating, also, why said decision did not correspond to the original court [the Court of Retalhuleu], which could have the jurisdiction pursuant [to the]