52 unacceptable from the point of view of human rights. The prediction will be made, in the best of cases, based on the diagnosis offered by a psychological o psychiatric expert assessment of the defendant. 96. Therefore, the introduction in the criminal text of the dangerousness of the agent as a criterion for the criminal classification of the acts and the application of certain sanctions is not compatible with the freedom from ex post facto law and, therefore, contrary to the Convention. 97. Article 2 of the Convention states the duty the States Parties to the Convention have to adjust their internal legislation to the obligations derived from the Convention. In this sense, the Court has stated that: [i]f the States, pursuant to Article 2 of the American Convention, have a positive obligation to adopt the legislative measures necessary to guarantee the exercise of the rights recognised in the Convention, it follows, then, that they also must refrain both from promulgating laws that disregard or impede the free exercise of these rights, and from suppressing or modifying the existing laws protecting them. These acts would likewise constitute a violation of Article 2 of the Convention.92 98. Based on all the above, the Court considers that the State has violated Article 9 of the Convention, in relation to Article 2 of the same, for having maintained in force the part of Article 132 of the Criminal Code that refers to the dangerousness of the agent, once the Convention was ratified by Guatemala. X ARTICLE 4 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 1(1) AND 2 OF THE SAME (RIGHT TO LIFE) 99. Arguments of the Commission: the State violated the right enshrined in Article 4 of the American Convention in relation with Article 1(1) of the same, with the conviction and possible execution of the death penalty imposed upon Mr. Fermín Ramírez in a criminal process in which the rights to a due process of law and an effective legal protection were violated; 100. Arguments of the representatives: a) the State violated the right enshrined in Article 4 of the Convention in relation with Article 1(1) of the same with the possible execution of the death penalty imposed upon Mr. Fermín Ramírez; b) at the time at which the request for the commutation of the sentence of Mr. Fermín Ramírez was decided on there was not in Guatemala regulation of pardon, reason for which both the procedure and the decision were arbitrary. The pardon process of Mr. Fermín Ramírez was carried out without legal formalities, without a hearing or the participation of the alleged victim. The 92 Cfr. Case of Caesar, supra note 3, para. 91; and Case of Hilaire, Constantine, and Benjamin et al., supra note 86, para. 113.