2. Case analysis 111. The Commission will now analyze, in light of the previous standards, whether the method of execution employed in the instant case was compatible with the right to humane treatment and the prohibition of torture. 112. First, as regards to the compatibility of the method of execution of the death penalty with the test of the least possible suffering, the Commission recalls that Roberto Girón and Pedro Castillo Mendoza were executed on September 13, 1996 by shooting firearms, in a public event broadcasted nationally. In addition, as Pedro Castillo Mendoza did not die as a result of the shots from the firing squad, one of the members of said squad has to fatally shoot him with a separate shot. 113. The Commission emphasizes, on the one hand, that execution through firearms can lead to prolonged agony and suffering, as was exemplified in the present case with Pedro Castillo Mendoza, who did not die during the discharge of bullets and had to receive a “coup de grâce”. As indicated in the section on proven facts, the State subsequently repealed the method of execution for the death penalty provided for in the legislation by means of Decree 100-96 and replaced it with the lethal injection procedure so that the Execution is carried out "in the most humane manner possible" and to ensure "the minimum suffering" of the person to whom the punishment is intended. In the same vein, the Commission takes into account that the method of execution by a firing squad did not generate the least suffering possible, and there were other alternatives to this punishment that generated less suffering. 114. In addition, the Commission considers that the transmission by national television of the executions of the alleged victims contributed to an increase in the level of suffering of their executions. While public oversight of executions may pursue legitimate purposes such as ensuring that the least possible suffering occurs or that the State implements the procedure as provided in the regulations, the Commission emphasizes that in the Guatemalan context the televised transmission of the executions was not directed towards this end, and that this purpose can be achieved by different means that do not convert a judicial execution into a type of public spectacle. 115. Secondly, as regards to the compatibility of the method of execution with the prohibition of torture, the Commission goes on to consider whether that method constituted torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment in the light of the constituent elements of torture. 116. According to the jurisprudence of the inter-American system, in order for a conduct to be classified as torture, the following elements must concur: (i) that it is an intentional act committed by a State agent or with his authorization or acquiescence; Ii) that causes intense physical or mental suffering and iii) that is committed with any aim or purpose86. 117. The Commission recalls as regards the first and third element that it was a penalty established by law for the purpose of punishing two persons for the commission of the crime of aggravated rape, therefore both elements are present in this case. As regards the third element, the Commission considers it pertinent to recall that several factors are relevant to the analysis: (i) 20 guards participated in the shooting by firing the alleged victims with firearms, a method which, as indicated, does not guarantee a death without Agony, for this depends on the bullets impacting vital organs of the alleged victim, and even in this case death may not occur instantaneously; ii) it is a proven fact that Pedro Castillo did not die during the discharge of bullets from the Squad so a guard came up to give him a “coup de grâce”; iii) the executions were televised to expose the alleged victims to public scorn. The IACHR considers that these elements taken together suggest that the method of execution generated intense physical and mental suffering for the alleged victims, in violation of the prohibition of torture provided for in articles 1 and 6 of the CIPST and articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the American Convention. 86 CIDH, Informe No. 5/96, Caso 10.970, Fondo, Raquel Martin Mejía, Perú, 1 de marzo de 1996, sección 3. análisis y Corte IDH. Caso Bueno Alves Vs. Argentina. Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 11 de mayo de 2007. Serie C No. 164, párr. 79. 20