11 35. That with regard to the obligation of the State to annul the punishment imposed on Mr. Raxcacó Reyes (operative paragraph eight of the Judgment), the State informed that on February 20, 2006, the Supreme Court of Justice delivered the Agreement N° 348-2006 by which a Tribunal was appointed in order to hold a new hearing within the proceedings initiated against the victim in order to replace the death sentence.7 That in the month of June, 2006, the plaintiff of said internal proceedings lodged a writ of amparo before the Court on Constitutional Affairs against the Agreement of the Supreme Court. On January 17, 2007, the Court on Constitutional Affairs denied the writ of amparo. That on October 17, 2007, the Sixth Court for Criminal Sentencing, Drug-Trafficking and Environmental Crimes set aside the death sentence and sentenced Mr. Raxcacó Reyes to "forty-years non-commutable imprisonment.” 36. That the representatives stated that the new sentence imposed on Mr. Raxcacó Reyes “was disproportionate taking into account the seriousness of the crime committed”, and for this reason, they lodged a “special appeal in order to reduce the imposed sentence.” According to the representatives, “the new sentence […] is only the partial compliance with the order delivered by the Court.” 37. That the Commission pointed out that it was waiting for the information regarding the development of this stage of appeal. 38. That this President notes that the State has taken steps towards the compliance with this obligation, but that it would be advisable to receive more information in order to establish compliance with this aspect. * * * 39. That as to the duty of the State to adopt the necessary measures to adapt prison conditions to the corresponding international standards (operative paragraph nine of the Judgment), the State informed that it has redesigning seven prison centers,8 that it have carried out several projects within the inmates’ population9 and that it made much progress in the health sector. 40. That the representatives pointed out that “it is necessary to assign an adequate budget for the Prison System in order to fully implement the Prison Act" and they also referred to the fact that "maximum security is still being applied to the prison called 7 Cf. Agreement N°348- 2006 of the President of the Judicial Department and of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Guatemala (case file of the Compliance with the Judgment, volume I, pages 23 to 26). The pertinent parts of said agreement establish that: Article 1: The Sixth Court for Criminal Sentencing, Drug-Trafficking and Environmental Crimes in and for Guatemala is hereby appointed, […] in order to effectively comply with the order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights[…]. Based on the decision made by the aforesaid international tribunal, and for the sake of the due process of law, taking into account that the courts of justice are guarantors of the respect and observance of the rights enshrined in the Constitution, the Criminal Sentencing court hereby appointed shall hold a new hearing in the proceedings [...] initiated against Mr. Ronald Ernesto Raxcacó Reyes, in order to issue a ruling according to the terms of the judgment delivered by the Court of record. 8 Said centers would Chimaltenango and Boquerón. 9 be: Santa Teresa, Minor Offenses, Quiché, Pavón, Puerto Barrios, Said projects would be: making at processing fee level, carpentry, textile mills, stores, deontological engineer, dining- rooms, doing of macramé, omelettes stores, handicrafts with wood, sewing of balls, lathe, shoemaking florist’s, manufacturing of “piñatas”, different crafts, vegetables, fish farming, manufacturing of balls, of paintings for mirrors, of wooden lamps, of crowns, of hammocks, of nets, fibre, wooden crafts, production of brushing, fommy drawings, palette houses, oil painting, covers for bibles, frames, beauty shops and manufacture of embroidery beads.