the above, the Court ordered the Guatemalan State to modify Article 132 of the Criminal Code to eliminate the reference to the dangerousness of the agent as an aggravating criterion for the crime or murder.17 47. In the abovementioned case, the Inter-American Court made reference to Article 4(6) of the American Convention, which stipulates that “every person condemned to death shall have the right to apply for amnesty, pardon, or commutation of sentence, which may be granted in all cases.” The Court considered that with the annulment of Decree 159 of 1892 which, as indicated, regulated the clemency prerogative of the President of the Republic, “an organization with the power to know of and decide upon the measure of grace established in Article 4(6) of the Convention was expressly disregarded. The Court also verified that from Governmental Agreement Number 235-2000, issued on a later date, it can be concluded that no State body has the power to know of and decide upon the measure of grace.”18 The Court determined that, since the internal legislation did not set forth any attribution so that a State body has the power to know of and decide upon the measures of grace, the State violated Article 4(6) of the Convention in connection to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same Convention.19 48. The Court ordered that “in the absence of a legal procedure that guarantees the right to request pardon, the commutation of the sentence, or amnesty, the State shall decree the commutation of the punishment imposed upon all those sentenced to death who were not able to exercise their right to seek for pardon” and ordered that the “State must adopt, within a reasonable period of time, the legislative and administrative measures necessary to establish a procedure that guarantees that every person sentenced to death has the right to request pardon or commutation of the sentence, pursuant to a regulation that determines the authority with the power to grant it, the events in which it proceeds and the corresponding procedure; in these cases the sentence must not be executed while the decision regarding the pardon or commutation of the sentence requested is pending.”20 49. In the Raxcacó Reyes Case, the Court reiterated that the annulment of Decree No. 159 of 1892, by Decree No. 32/2000, resulted in the elimination of the powers granted to an organ of the State to hear and decide the right to a pardon stipulated in Article 4(6) of the Convention.21 4. The death penalty in Guatemala presently 50. After these decisions, the Guatemalan State has not sentenced or implemented the death penalty. Neither has it regulated the pardon prerogative. However, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has commuted the death penalty sentence to all of those who have requested it.22 17 I/A Court H.R., Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, paras. 94 and following. 18 I/A Court H.R., Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 107. 19 I/A Court H.R., Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 110. 20 I/A Court H.R., Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala Case. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126. 21 I/A Court H.R., Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, para. 85. 22 See press note published by Efe Agency, Piden en Guatemala restituir figura de indulto, y con ella, la pena de muerte (There are requests in Guatemala to reinstante clemency, and with it, the death penalty,) March 10, 2016, El periódico, conmutación de la pena de muerte (Death penalti commutation,) February 12, 2016. The IACHR has also kept note of several domestic decisions made before year 2000, in which domestic tribunals decided not to execute the death penalty as it was in violation of Article 4(2) of the American Convention. To that respect, in its Annual Report of 1997, the IACHR stated: “The Commission referred in its last report to the noteworthy judgment of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of Appeals of January 30, 1997, commuting three death sentences to non-commutable sentences of 50 years on the basis of the requirements of domestic law including the State's obligations pursuant to Article 4 of the American 8