18 58. That, by virtue of the foregoing, the Tribunal has the authority, within the scope of monitoring compliance with the Judgments delivered in the aforesaid cases, to verify that the State complies with the duties so established. 59. That, as ordered in other cases6 the Court considers that, unlike the provisional measures that the Tribunal orders in accordance with Article 63(2) of the American Convention, that requires the prima facie demostration of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, the cases analyzed in this Order are of extreme gravity and urgency that have not only been prima facie demonstrated, but fully proved before the Court and expressly declared by it in the Judgment. Therefore, the Court ordered the State to adopt the measures for reparation mentioned above. Likewise, it is not about avoid causing irreparable damage to people for events that still have not occurred, but it is about ending with the consequences of the violation of the Convention already so declared by the Court in final Judgments. 60. That, based on the foregoing, it is unnecessary the extension of the provisional measures requested by the representatives and supported by the Commission. In fact, the duty of the state of not executing those people sentenced to death derived from the Judgments delivered in the cases of Fermín Ramírez and Raxcacó Reyes, under the provisions set forth in the previous considering clauses. 61. That, moreover, the provisional measures ordered in the case of Raxcacó Reyes et al. have a specific goal, namely, to protect the life of Mr. Bernardino Rodríguez Lara in order to not hinder the processing of his case before the InterAmerican system for the protection of human rights. The purpose exposed by the representatives in their request for extension is different from the one mentioned above and, due to the lack of connection, it does not have to do with an extension of measures but with a new request for provisional measures that, according to Article 63 of the Convention, can only be filed by the Inter-American Commission. 62. That, even when the Commission has, in fact, filed a request for provisional measures, Considering clauses 59 and 60 supra are applicable. 63. That, as to the duty of the State to adopt a procedure that ensures that any person condemned to death has the right to apply for and, if applicable, obtain pardon or commutation of sentence, the Court recalls the State that the remedies it must offer, including the pardon, must not be simple formalities condemned, beforehand, to be useless. Otherwise, the provisions of the Convention would not be effective. To such regard, the Court values that the State itself has pointed out that the Decree Nº 6- 2008 did not contain a remedy that complied with the conventional demands established in the Judgments of the cases of Fermín Ramírez and Raxcacó Reyes. In such sense, the Tribunal understands that in the case the Congress of the Republic of Guatemala denies the presidential veto of such Decree, the State would not have complied with its international duties and, as a logical consequence, will not be able to execute any person sentenced to death until the legislation conforms to the American Convention. It is worth recalling that according to the case law of this Court, When the Legislative Power fails to set aside and / or adopts laws which are contrary to the American Convention, the Judiciary is bound to honor the obligation to respect rights as stated in Article 1(1) of the said Convention, and consequently, it must refrain from enforcing any laws contrary to such Convention. The observance by State agents or officials of a law which violates the Convention gives rise to the international liability of such State, as contemplated in International Human Rights Law, in the sense that every 6 See Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2007, Considering Clause nine and ten.