4. The representatives confirmed that, in the context of “the appeal for review,” the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice decided on October 28, 2011, to commute the death penalty imposed on Mr. Rodríguez Lara to a non-commutable prison sentence of fifty years. They added that this jurisdictional body subsequently “modified its decision and applied the penalty established in the ordinary regulations in force at the time of its commission for that offense, imposing a non-commutable prison sentence of thirty years.” In this regard, they agreed that the provisional measures in favor of Mr. Bernardino Rodríguez Lara are no longer necessary, given that he is no longer facing the death penalty. 5. The Commission noted with approval that the death penalty imposed on Mr. Rodríguez Lara has been commuted to imprisonment. Bearing in mind the position of the representatives and the fact that the purpose of the provisional measures granted in favor of Mr. Bernardino Rodríguez Lara was to protect his life, the Commission held that the reasons for which these measures were granted no longer exist, and therefore considered it appropriate to lift these. 6. Now, based on the information provided by the State on April 20, 2012, which was confirmed by the representatives, and noting the approval of the parties and the Commission, the Court considers that, according to the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of October 28, 2011, the situation of extreme gravity and urgency for the life of Mr. Bernardino Rodríguez Lara has ceased, inasmuch as the death sentence was commuted to a prison sentence. Consequently, the Court concludes that the reasons that prompted the adoption of provisional measures in favor of Mr. Bernardino Rodríguez Lara no longer exist, for which reason it is appropriate to lift the measures ordered in his favor. 7. As to the information received by the State and the representatives, as well as the observations of the Commission regarding the decisions issued in relation to the appeals of review filed by the defense attorneys of other persons sentenced to death before the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice; the decisions of the Constitutional Court on the writs of amparo filed against the rulings wherein the appeals for review were denied; the lack of a procedure to grant or deny an appeal for commutation of sentence or pardon, as well as the prison conditions of Mr. Rodríguez Lara, the Court notes that these matters are not the subject matter of these provisional measures, but pertain to the monitoring of compliance with the Judgments delivered in the cases of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala and Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala,5 as was communicated to the parties in the Court’s Order of May 9, 2008, considering paragraphs 57 and 58, and through the note of the Secretariat of August 20, 2008 (supra having seen paragraphs 3 and 7). Accordingly, it is not up to this Court to rule on this matter in the context of these provisional measures. 8. Finally, the Court reiterates that Article 1(1) of the American Convention establishes the general obligation of States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms enshrined therein and to guarantee their free and full exercise to all persons subject to their jurisdiction, in all circumstances. Moreover, provisional measures are exceptional in nature and are complementary to this general obligation of the States. In this regard, the presumptions that persuade the Court to lift provisional measures can never imply that the State is exonerated from its treaty-based protection obligations. Hence, the Court emphasizes that, regardless of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State is obligated to guarantee Mr. Bernardino Rodríguez Lara’s rights. On this point, the Court notes that in 5 Cf. Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, and Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126. 4