35. In addition, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Guatemala has issued several decisions declaring the self-executing nature of the judgments handed down by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the cases of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.),61 the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.),62 Bámaca Velásquez,63 and Carpio Nicolle et al.,64 all against the State of Guatemala. In these judgments, the InterAmerican Court found that the criminal proceedings relating to each of the said cases had violated the American Convention on Human Rights and, consequently, ordered the Guatemalan State to conduct an effective investigation into the facts that gave rise to these violations, and to identify, prosecute and punish those responsible. In compliance with the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court declared the nullity of the corresponding domestic judgments, as well as of all subsequent proceedings and, consequently, ordered a new trial that respected the rules of due process of law, and complied with the purposes of criminal proceedings, which is to prove the facts and punish those responsible. Lastly, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court declared that, since the Republic of Guatemala could not invoke its domestic law or argue the absence of procedures or laws to comply with the international judgment, the act of executing the latter had the effect of a special act of the ordinary procedure. 36. Also, in the case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala, the Inter-American Court ordered the State to conduct a new trial of the petitioner. The Court observed and assessed positively, the terms of Decision No. 96-2006 taken by the Supreme Court of Justice of Guatemala, which constituted a significant precedent in the sphere of the inter-American system as regards the execution of the judgments of this Court, by appointing a court to conduct a new trial based on the decision of the Inter-American Court.65 37. Also on May 12, 2010, by Decision No. 240, the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of Panama indicated that “the Republic of Panama, as a member of the international community, recognizes, respects and complies with the decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,” and decided to refer the Court’s judgment in the case of Tristán Donoso to the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.66 Subsequently, the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice delivered a judgment in which it indicated that “based on the provisions of the judgment of January 27, 2009, handed down by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this Superior Court finds it necessary to acquit Santander Tristán Donoso of the charges as author of the offense of calumny […] and, consequently, to annul the punishment.”67 61 Cf. Decision No. MP001/2005/46063 of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Guatemala of December 11, 2009. 62 Cf. Decision No. MP001/2008/of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Guatemala 63814 of December 11, 2009. 63 Cf. Decision No. MP001/2009/10170 of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Guatemala of December 11, 2009. 64 Cf. Decision No. MP001/2008/2506 of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Guatemala of December 11, 2009. 65 Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 9, 2008, eighth considering paragraph. 66 Supreme Court of Justice of Panama, Decision No. 240 of May 12, 2010, complying with the Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 27, 2009, in the case of Santander Tristán Donoso v. Panama. 67 Supreme Court of Justice de Panama, Criminal Chamber, Judgment of May 12, 2010. 15