I INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. Proceedings before the Court. On April 19, 2018, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter also “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”), in accordance with the provisions of Articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention and Article 35 of the Rules of Procedure, submitted the case named Valenzuela Ávila v. Guatemala (hereinafter also “the State” or “Guatemala”) to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court. The Commission indicated that the case is related to a series of violations of due process in the criminal proceedings against Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila (hereinafter also “Mr. Valenzuela Ávila” or “Mr. Valenzuela” or “alleged victim”) for the crime of murder, which culminated in his being sentenced to the death penalty based on the concept of dangerousness, as well as torture perpetrated at the time of arrest, after being recaptured after his first escape from prison in June 1998, and again after being recaptured after his second escape from prison in June 2001, in addition to the alleged extrajudicial execution of Mr. Valenzuela. 2. Proceedings before the Commission. The proceedings before the Commission were as follows: a) Petition. On October 5, 2001, the Commission received the petition filed by the Institute for Comparative Studies in Criminal Sciences (hereinafter also “IECCPG” due to its initials in Spanish or “petitioners”) and recorded it under number 723/011, on behalf of Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila. b) Admissibility Report. On February 26, 2004, the Commission issued Admissibility Report No. 24/042. Subsequently, the petitioners alleged, the violation of the alleged victim's right to life derived from his alleged extrajudicial execution, which occurred on December 8, 2006, 3 as a supervening fact. Given the above, on December 8, 2016, the Commission granted the State an additional period of four months to submit its observations on the admissibility and merits of the claim. On April 10, 2017, the State presented its additional observations c) Admissibility and Merits Report. On October 25, 2017, the Commission issued Merits Report No. 132/17 (hereinafter “Admissibility and Merits Report” or “the Report”), in accordance with Article 50 of the American Convention, in which it reached a series of conclusions 4, and made several recommendations to the State. Cf. Complaint filed with the Commission on October 3, 2001 (file of proceedings before the Commission, folios 2587 to 2598). 2 The Commission declared the petition admissible with respect to possible violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 1(1), 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, and Articles 1, 8, and 9 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of Mr. Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila. It declared inadmissible the facts regarding Tirso Román Valenzuela’s conditions of detention due to failure to exhaust domestic remedies, in application of Article 47(a) of the American Convention. In the preliminary considerations, the Commission indicated that “[e]ven though the petitioners point out that the alleged torture was perpetrated to obtain a confession, at no time have violations of due process been alleged for this fact, despite the fact that said confession would have been used in the process in which the alleged victim was sentenced to death. In fact, the petitioners themselves indicate that in relation to this aspect, domestic remedies have not yet been exhausted” (file of proceedings before the Commission, fs. 3128 to 3137). 3 According to the brief of the then petitioners received by the Commission on March 30, 2007, in which they reported on the alleged extrajudicial execution of Mr. Valenzuela (file of proceedings before the Commission, fs. 2768 to 2778). 4 The Commission concluded that Guatemala is responsible for the violation of the rights to life, personal integrity, judicial guarantees of a fair trial, the principle of legality and judicial protection established in articles 4(1), 4(2), 5(1), 5(2), 8(1), 8(2)(g), 8(2)(h), 8(3), 9, 11 and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the 1 4