35 consideration, such as the inexistence of a criminal or police record and his age at the time, about 22 years old, factors that reveal that he was a young man without the level of dangerousness that would merit the imposition of the most severe punishment. The court was unable to consider independently and impartially the characteristics of the case, including the short duration of the abduction, which only lasted about 30 hours, and the fact that the victim of the kidnapping was not killed, and this violated Article 8(1) of the American Convention; (b) The mandatory death penalty deprives a defendant of the possibility of exercising his right to defense, since all his arguments and evidence are reduced to the sole possibility of proving that he did not commit the act that it considered a crime. He is unable to prove that the death penalty is inappropriate for the case and for himself, or that there are circumstances that attenuate his guilt. In brief, the alleged victim’s possibility of presenting evidence and making statements so that the court could assess whether the death penalty was the appropriate punishment was restricted. Therefore, the domestic criminal proceedings did not conclude with an individualized sentence that took into account the particularities of the case and the personal circumstances of the defendant; and (c) Finding itself obliged to impose the death penalty, the court of second instance that decided the appeal filed by Mr. Raxcacó Reyes did not assess whether this was the appropriate punishment for the personal situation of the accused and the specific circumstances in which the act was carried out, nor did it assess the proportionality between the crime and the punishment. The access to this instance was merely of a formal nature, and there was no real, comprehensive and thorough analysis of the merits of the case, and of all the pertinent issues of the particular case decided by the lower court. Arguments of the State 105. In relation to Article 8 of the American Convention, the State indicated that it had complied with Guatemalan domestic laws, carrying out the respective criminal proceeding and conducting the oral public debate in which the principle of promptness was observed, and the judges had access to the parties and to the evidence presented in order to subsequently assess them and decide on the criminal responsibility of the accused and on the respective punishment. Findings of the Court 106. The Court finds that the facts alleged in this case with regard to Article 8 of the American Convention were examined when analyzing the mandatory death penalty imposed on Mr. Raxcacó Reyes (supra paras. 73 to 82); consequently, it is not necessary to rule on them separately. XI VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 25 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION (RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION) Arguments of the Commission