131. It is clear from the rules transcribed above that the appeal in cassation, like the special appeal in cassation, does not permit the review of facts or evidence, only of law. 132. The Court recalls that Mr. Rodríguez Revolorio, Mr. López Calo, and Mr. Archila Pérez, who were sentenced to death, filed a special appeal on grounds of substance and form against the judgment handed down on May 23, 1996, by the Fourth Criminal Sentencing Court for Drug Trafficking and Crimes against the Environment of Guatemala.177 Mr. López Calo and Mr. Archila Pérez based their appeal alleging (i) that the sentencing court did not observe Article 370 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and (ii) the erroneous application of the law by allowing a prosecutorial assistant to act in the debate; and Mr. Miguel Ángel Rodríguez Revolorio based his appeal; with respect to the substantive defects, he alleged that there was: (i) non-observance of the substantive law in relation to the fixing of the sentence, (ii) non-observance of the substantive law in relation to the generic and specific aggravating circumstances of the crime, and (iii) partial non-observance of the content of the substantive law for establishing the death sentence. With respect to the form, he alleged that: (i) there was insufficient individualization of the accused, (ii) absence of precise determination and circumstances of the fact, (iii) lack of sufficient justification in the deliberation and voting by the court, (v) lack of sufficient justification of the court that induced to convict, (vi) lack of sufficient justification of the Court that induced to convict, (vii) lack of sufficient justification in the voting (vii) absence of essential elements in the operative part of the sentence, and (viii) absence of the applicable legal provisions in the operative part of the sentence. 133. On September 2, 1996, the Court of Appeals dismissed the special appeals filed by Rodríguez Revolorio, López Calo, and Archila Pérez.178 In what is relevant to the present section, the appellate court noted the following in relation to the allegations of non-observance of substantive law in relation to the fixing of the sentence, the generic and specific aggravating circumstances of the crime, and the partial non-observance of the content of the substantive law to order the death sentence: "These reasons cannot be accepted by the Court of Appeals because: the way in which the generic and specific aggravating circumstances of the crime were applied is not reviewable through the special appeal, because their application derives from decisions of the sentencing Court on the evidence provided and diligently examined in the hearing: a factual examination that escapes the review of this Court due to the exclusively revisory nature in the legal field of the appeal that concerns us.179 All aspects related to the fixing of the sentence are not susceptible of being heard by means of the special appeal, because it derives from a discretionary power that the law confers on the Judges so that, based on Article 65 of the Criminal Code, they may arrive at conclusions of legal certainty as to its fixing: fixing that obviously starts from the facts evaluated as evidence by the sentencing court: facts that have already been established cannot be reviewed by the Court that is resolving today. It can only be judicially reviewed by means of the appeal that concerns us, when the Court has not respected the regulations that grant it this discretionary power".180 134. With respect to the numerous issues raised by the alleged victims in their appeals regarding the non-observance of the substantive law in relation to fixing of the sentence, the generic and specific aggravating circumstances of the crime, and the partial non-observance of the content of Cf. Judgment issued by the Tenth Chamber of the Court of Appeals, Guatemala, of September 2, 1996 (evidence file, folio 1988). 178 Cf. Judgment issued by the Tenth Chamber of the Court of Appeals, Guatemala, of September 2, 1996 (evidence file, folio 1988). 179 Cf. Judgment issued by the Tenth Chamber of the Court of Appeals, Guatemala, of September 2, 1996 (evidence file, folios 2005 and 2006). 180 Cf. Judgment issued by the Tenth Chamber of the Court of Appeals, Guatemala, of September 2, 1996 (evidence file, folio 2006). 177 38 Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes of Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes of Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes of Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes of