16 and Ernesto Raxcacó what resulted in a risky situation for those sentenced to death”. 52. That the Commission pointed out that the goal of the pardon law was to accelerate the enforcement of the convictions which, according to its criterion, derives from the presidential veto. It considered that a pardon law should be passed in total satisfaction with the Guatemalan constitutional principles and the demands of the Judgments of the Court. It stated that the application of the death penalty in the above mentioned cases would imply an “open non-compliance” with the decisions of the Court that ordered the State to reform the criminal types, modify the system of remedies and refrain from executing the convicted people as long as it complies with such duties. It sustained that the “execution of any person [sentenced] to death in Guatemala would not conform to the American Convention on Human Rights nor to the rulings of the Commission and the Court" and considered it is necessary that, in the procedure to monitor compliance with the Judgments delivered in the cases of Fermín Ramírez and Raxcacó Reyes, the Court adopt measures to protect such persons. Additionally, the Commission pointed out that if the Court considers that the above mentioned exceeds its authority to monitor compliance with such Judgments, it should take it as an express request for provisional measures. 53. That the State pointed out that the Governmental Agreement Nº 104-2008, through which the President of the Republic vetoed the Decree Nº 6-2008, contained the following observations: a) This law violates Article 2 of the Political Constitution of the Republic because the provisions contained in Articles 5 and 8 and related to the personal background of the applicant, the term for the administrative silence and the term to request the pardon violate the principle of “legal certainty” that the State must ensure to every inhabitant of the Republic; b) the Decree violates Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution since, by using the argument of establishing pardon for the death penalty, what it is impliedly doing is restoring the enforcement of this penalty, which goes against the most basic principle of the Constitution, that is the right to life ensured and protected by the State ; c) it violates Article 15 since, by using the argument of establishing pardon for death penalty, makes effective the new procedure for enforcement of said penalty which turns the law in retroactive, which is not only prohibited by the Constitution but the provision does not favor the inmate; this procedure for the enforcement of the penalty was abolished by the repealing of Decree Nº 159 of the Legislative National Assembly and therefore, suppressed from the Guatemalan legal system (Decree 32-2000 of the Congress of the Republic dated May 11, 2000); d) it violates the last paragraph of Article 18 of the Constitution because the procedure for the enforcement of death penalty has already been abolished by means of the so-called Decree Nº 159 and the issuance of Decree 62008 of the Congress of the Republic is a serious setback for the tendency to abolish the death penalty; together with that, Article 46 of the Political Constitution of the Republic is being violated and therefore, subsection 3 of Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights prevails and thus, it is determined that once said penalty is abolished it will no longer be reestablished; in this case, once the procedure for enforcement was abolished, the tendency towards abolishing the death penalty made some progress and, by virtue of the law that marked such tendency, the death penalty can no longer be reestablished, though such provision continues existing under the penal legal system; e) it violates Article 19 of the Constitution inasmuch as the application of the death penalty maintains the tendency to eliminate the human being from the social center, at the same time that the Constitution provides that the prison system must tend to the social re-insertion and reeducation of the inmates and must help them in such effect. 54. That, furthermore, the State informed that the Decree 6-2008 "is under suspension until the full Congress of the Republic hears it again and reconsiders or denies the presidential veto; to such end, the Congress must obtain 105 votes in order to make use of the Parliamentary sovereignty and in this way, the related decree can enters into force. The State acknowledged that the Decree Nº 6-2008 “does not comply with the Judgments of […] Court in the cases of Fermín Ramírez and Ronald Ernesto Raxcacó Reyes, in relation to the creation of a procedure that