to humane treatment of Mr. Rodríguez Revolorio, Mr. López Calo, and Mr. Archila Pérez was violated because of the prison conditions to which they were subjected, in addition to having experienced the "death row" phenomenon. 51. In light of the foregoing, in the instant case the Court will examine the alleged responsibility of the State for (i) the death sentence imposed on Rodríguez Revolorio, López Calo and Archila Pérez, (ii) the prison conditions to which they were subjected, and, finally, (iii) the alleged violation of the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection. VIII-1 RIGHT TO LIFE AND THE PRINCIPLES OF FREEDOM FROM EX POST FACTO LAWS AND NON-RETROACTIVITY60 52. In this section, the Court will examine the allegations relating to the violation of the right to life and the principle of legality (freedom from ex post facto laws) derived from Articles 4 and 9 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2, as a result of the imposition of the death penalty on Mr. Rodríguez Revolorio, Mr. López Calo and Mr. Archila Pérez. A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 53. The Commission noted that the instant case involves the application of Article 132 of the Guatemalan Criminal Code, which established the element of dangerousness as a criterion for the imposition of the death penalty in the case of murder. The Commission underscored that speculation regarding possible future behavior derived from the circumstances of the commission of the crimes for which they were convicted. The Commission also indicated that the criterion of dangerousness in the criminal definition constituted a direct violation of the right to freedom from ex post facto laws (principle of legality), especially if that criterion was used to apply an irreversible and irremediable sentence such as the death penalty. The Commission concluded that the State of Guatemala is responsible for the violation of the freedom from ex post facto laws established in Article 9 of the American Convention in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Archila Pérez, Mr. López Calo and Mr. Rodríguez Revolorio. 54. On the other hand, the Commission argued that the imposition of the death penalty occurred in the context of a process that was arbitrary and violated the right to a fair trial. Therefore, it violated Articles 4(1) and 4(2) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument. 55. The representatives agreed with the Commission's arguments with respect to the application of the criterion of dangerousness in the framework of the criminal proceedings against the alleged victims, as well as with respect to the alleged violation of Articles 4(1) and 4(2) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument. 56. The State, for its part, stated that the penalty imposed for the crime of murder and attempted murder was regulated in domestic legislation according to the time of the commission of the crime. In addition, the law most favorable to the convicted persons was applied. Proof of this would be that, according to the calculation of the total term of the sentence, it would expire in the year 2025, and yet the alleged victims enjoyed the benefit of early release, which became effective in 2016. In view of the foregoing, the State concluded that it is not internationally responsible for the violation of the right enshrined in Article 9 of the American Convention. 60 Articles 4 and 9 of the American Convention. 16