11 possibility of applying the death penalty for that crime from the country’s laws. In this regard, in the hypothesis that, according to the laws of Guatemala, it is understood that the death penalty has been annulled for the crime of murder, the Court finds it necessary to recall that Article 4 of the American Convention reflects a “progressive and irreversible process” that “absolutely prohibits the re-establishment of capital punishment for any crime, so that the decision of a State Party to the Convention, whensoever it was adopted, to abolish the death penalty becomes, ipso jure, a final and irrevocable decision.” The Convention “is clearly of a progressive nature; thus, without going so far as to decide on the abolition of the death penalty, it adopts the necessary provisions to definitively limit its application and its scope, so that its use is gradually reduced until it is finally eliminated.” In this way, if the death penalty was eliminated from the law for the crime of murder, it cannot be reinstated for that crime.26 39. In this order, the Court also noted that, at the date of the State’s most recent report “there were no prisoners sentenced to death [in Guatemala], and capital punishment had not been applied since 2002 […] [, and it took] note […] [of the] general suspension of the application of this punishment linked to compliance with the measure of reparation [established in the judgment in this case] related to the obligation to regulate commutations of sentence in [its] jurisdiction.”27 B. Criminal proceedings and execution of Roberto Girón and Pedro Castillo B.1. Facts with regard to the criminal proceedings and execution of Messrs. Girón and Castillo 40. Roberto Girón and Pedro Castillo were accused of the crime of the aggravated rape of a four-year old girl which took place on April 18, 1993. 41. On April 19, 1993, Roberto Girón gave his preliminary statement before the first trial judge. The judge advised him that he could appoint a defense counsel and that he had five days to do so, or the court would appoint a public defender, and Mr. Girón responded that he would appoint one later. In his statement, the alleged victim indicated that he had been detained on April 18, 1993, and had not been informed of the reason for his detention. The alleged victim was asked about the part played by Pedro Castillo Mendoza in the perpetration of the crime and he replied: “It was not me, possibly it was him with other people.”28 42. On the same day, April 19, 1993, and before the same official, Pedro Castillo Mendoza provided his preliminary statement. The corresponding record indicates that the alleged victim was informed that he had been “detained for the crime of aggravated rape [… and] that [he could] appoint a defense counsel who [could] be present during [that] procedure, and [that he had] five day to do this; to the contrary, the court would appoint a public defender; the deponent indicated that he w[ould] do this later.” During the said statement, the judge asked him if he was under the influence of drugs, alcohol, medication or narcotics during the crime and he responded that he was in his right mind, as was Roberto Girón. The judge also asked him why he had raped and caused the death of the child, and he replied: “I don’t know what came over us; I don’t know what we were thinking,” and he then added that “I have never committed any crime and it is the first time I did, but I don’t know what came over us, me and my co-worker, Roberto Girón, and I don’t remember whose idea it was to act in this way […].”29 Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra, considering paragraph 13, and Case of Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala, supra, para. 32 27 Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra, considering paragraph 8, and Case of Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala, supra, para. 33. 28 Cf. Record of preliminary statement of April 19, 1993, before the first trial judge (evidence file, annexes to the Merits Report, annex 1, fs. 3 to 7). 29 Cf. Record of preliminary statement of April 19, 1993, before the first trial judge (evidence file, annexes to the Merits Report, annex 2, fs. 9 to 14). 26