3 6. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention states that “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” The conventional obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and bodies of the State. 7. That the States Parties to the Convention, in view of the basic objective of the Convention to guarantee the effective protection of human rights (Articles 1(1), 2, 51, and 63(2), must abstain from carrying out actions that may prevent the restitutio in integrum of the rights of the alleged victims.3 8. That pursuant to the Orders of the Court of August 30, 2004 (supra Having Seen paragraph 1), July 4, 2006 (supra Having Seen paragraph 2), and February 2, 2007 (supra Having Seen paragraph 4), the State is obliged to adopt the “measures necessary” to protect the lives of Bernardino Rodríguez-Lara and Pablo Arturo RuizAlmengor, in order to avoid that the processing of their cases before the InterAmerican system for the protection of human rights be hindered. 9. That pursuant to the reports presented by the State “through order dated February 15, 2005, [issued by] the Presidency of the Judicial Body[,] the provisional suspension of the execution of the death penalties against the convicted Bernardino Rodríguez-Lara y Pablo Arturo Ruiz-Almengor […] was ordered.” The State adds that on May 14, 2007, the Supreme Court of Justice formed in Criminal Chambers issued an order through which it declared “[t]he revision requested by Pablo Arturo RuizAlmengor admissible, and therefore it ANNUL[ED] the death penalty issued by the Criminal Judgment, Narcotics, and Environmental Crimes Court of the Municipality of Mixo of the Department of Guatemala.” The Supreme Court issued a “conviction of fifty years in prison for each crime committed against Pablo Arturo Ruiz-Almengor[…], which adds up to a total of one hundred years in prison.” Based on the aforementioned, Guatemala requested that the provisional measures adopted in benefit of Mr. Ruiz Almengor be lifted, taking into account “that the matter of the same is left without effect.” 10. That the representatives in their briefs stated that the Judgment issued as a consequence of the appeal for review presented by Pablo Arturo Ruiz-Almengor, revoked the conviction to the death penalty and commuted the conviction. Therefore, the representatives pointed out that the “situation of extreme gravity and urgency with regard to the right to life of Mr. PABLO ARTURO RUIZ-ALMENGOR, has ceased, since there is no longer a risk to his life derived from the execution of the judgment.” In what refers to Mr. Bernardino Rodríguez-Lara the representatives indicated that “the conditions of extreme gravity and urgency […] continue to be the same,” since on November 13, 2006 “the Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Chamber, [d]eclar[ed] the request for revision INADMISSIBLE.” Thus, they expressed that “the declaration of inadmissibility of the appeal for review presented makes the situation of extreme gravity and urgency of the present measures […] in favor of Mr. BERNARDINO RODRIGUEZ-LARA worse, since he does not have any more ordinary domestic recourses he may apply. Mr. [Rodríguez-Lara] may now only exercise his right to pardon or the measure of grace, contemplated in Article 4(6) of the American Convention. However, the exercise of this recourse is not currently possible, because 3 Cf. Matter of James et al v. Trinidad and Tobago. Provisional Measures, supra note 2, Considering clause number six.