B. Admissibility of the testimonial and expert evidence 33. The Court finds it pertinent to admit the statements and expert opinions provided during the public hearing24 and by affidavit,25 insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring them.26 34. In addition, the Court notes that, in its final written arguments, the State questioned the probative value of the expert opinion provided by expert witness Guillermo Austreberto Carranza Izquierdo, and the joint expert opinion provided by Parvais Jabbar and Edward Fitzgerald. In particular, regarding the expert opinion of Mr. Carranza Izquierdo, it indicated that this professional had had no contact with Mr. Ruiz Fuentes, and had merely examined the documents contained in the case file. It added that Mr. Carranza Izquierdo did not have the “necessary qualifications to provide this type of expert opinion” because he had made assertions that could only be made by criminalistics experts, while this expert witness only had a diploma in forensic medicine. Regarding the joint expert opinion provided by Parvais Jabbar and Edward Fitzgerald, in addition to refuting some of their assertions, the State indicated that these expert witnesses failed to refer to certain facts it considered relevant.27 The Court will take these arguments into account and will make the clarifications required to decide this case when addressing the contested facts. VII FACTS 35. In this chapter, the Court will establish the facts of the case based on the factual framework submitted to its consideration by the Inter-American Commission in relation to: (a) the legal framework for the death penalty; (b) the detention of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes and the arguments concerning torture; (c) the criminal proceedings against Mr. Ruiz Fuentes; (d) the escape from “El Infiernito” prison and subsequent death of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes, and (e) the investigation conducted as a result of his death. A. The Guatemalan legal framework for the death penalty 36. The death penalty is established in both the Constitution and the criminal laws of Guatemala. Article 18 of the Guatemalan Constitution establishes the possibility of imposing the death penalty. 28 Also, article 43 of the Criminal Code in force in 1997 stipulated: During the public hearing the Court received the statements of A.M.V. and Jorge Santos, and the expert opinion of Guillermo Austreberto Carranza. 25 The Court received the affidavits made by: Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’ sister, W.E.R.V. and Benedicto Tenas, proposed by the representatives; expert witnesses Juan Cristóbal Aldana, Leonel González and Edgar René Celada Quezada, proposed by the representatives, and expert witnesses Parvais Jabbar and Edward Fitzgerald, proposed by the Commission. 26 The purpose of all these statements was established in the order of the President of the Inter-American Court of February 14, 2019. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/ruiz_fuentes_14_02_19.pdf 27 In particular, the State indicated that the expert witnesses “failed to mention that this sentence was commuted for imprisonment. They also failed to mention the fact that, after several attempts, Mr. Ruiz Fuentes was finally able to escape from the prison; consequently, he was not in the custody of the State. Furthermore, they did not refer to the true facts of the case: the crimes against a child committed by Mr. Ruiz Fuentes. Consequently, the expert opinions is intentionally biased.” 28 Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala decreed by the Constituent Assembly, May 31, 1985, amended by referendum, Legislative Decision 18-93. Article 18. Death penalty. The death penalty may not be imposed in the following cases. a. Based on presumptions; b. On women c. On those over sixty years of age; d. On those convicted of political crimes and common crimes related to political crimes, and e. On those convicted and whose extradition has been granted under this condition. All pertinent legal remedies, including cassation, shall be admissible against a sentence imposing the death penalty; the remedy of cassation shall always be admitted for processing. The sentence shall be executed after all remedies have been exhausted. The Congress of the Republic may abolish the death penalty. 24 10