14 the evidence whose assessment was contested.43 It is an undisputed fact that Messrs. Girón and Castillo filed an application for amparo before the Constitutional Court and, on November 7, 1995, this was declared inadmissible. 53. On July 12, 1996, Pedro Castillo Mendoza and Roberto Girón filed an appeal for clemency before the President of the Republic, in which they argued that the different courts involved in the proceedings had failed to make a thorough analysis of the evidence that had been provided or of the violations of the law, and that the judgments handed down had been more political than legal; therefore, they asked that the death penalty be commuted to the maximum prison sentence.44 This appeal was rejected on July 17, 1996, as follows: That, the Executive Branch must act respecting the constitutional mandate that there is no subordination among the branches of the State. That, with regard to the administration of justice, this is a function and power that falls exclusively to the courts empowered to adjudicate and to ensure execution of the sentence, and the exercise of the said function and power must be respected by the other branches of the State, complying with the rulings of the courts, especially if the constitutional guarantees of due process have been respected and the right of defense has been exercised.45 54. On July 20, 1996, the alleged victims filed an application for amparo against the President’s decision before the Constitutional Court. On August 9, 1996, this was rejected. 55. On August 23, 1996, the alleged victims filed an appeal for review, through their lawyers, JSR and ASS. On August 29, 1996, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the application outright based on “article 547 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Decree 51-92 of the Congress of the Republic), in force, [which established] that the rules of the abrogated Code of Criminal Procedure (Decree […] 52-73 of the Congress of the Republic) will be applied to all those cases in which the order to go to trial had already been issued, as in the current proceedings, in which this was issued on May 12, 1993, at which time the abrogated code was in force.”46 56. On July 20, 1996, the lawyers CPL and VRC filed an application for amparo before the Constitutional Court against the first judge for execution of sentence, because he had notified the execution of the alleged victims on July 23, 1996, at 8 a.m. in the Canada Model Rehabilitation Center, of the Department of Escuintla. The Constitutional Court admitted the application for processing, ordered provisional protection and forwarded the case file to the Fourth Chamber of the Appellate Court which was the competent body. On August 11, 1996, the Fourth Chamber of the Appellate Court confirmed the provisional protection in favor of the accused, suspending the execution of the death penalty. On August 20, 1996, the Fourth Chamber of the Appellate Court decided, among other matters, to deny the application for amparo on the grounds that it was exceedingly inappropriate and to revoke the provisional protection granted on August 11, 1996.47 Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice on the cassation appeals dated September 27, 1994 (evidence file, helpful evidence provided by the representatives, annex A.2, fs. 3123 to 3128). 44 Cf. Appeal for clemency filed by Pedro Castillo Mendoza and Roberto Girón before the President of the Republic on July 12, 1996 (evidence file, annexes to the Merits Report, annex 12, fs. 76 to 82). 45 Decision of the President of the Republic rejecting the appeal for clemency on July 17, 1996 (evidence file, annexes to the Merits Report, annex 13, f. 84). 46 Report of the Government of Guatemala to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Case No. 11,686 Roberto Girón and Pedro Castillo Mendoza dated December 27, 1996 (evidence file, annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex VI. G., fs. 1322 to 1326). 47 The presentation of the application for amparo, the admission of a provisional amparo, and the suspension of the execution are undisputed facts. Cf. Report of the Government of Guatemala to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Case No. 11,686, supra. 43