16 process and that, in practice, the essential aspects of the proceedings had been subject to intense scrutiny by the media; a situation that was very different from the one reflected by the considerations of the Commission and the representatives. B. Considerations of the Court 63. For the purposes of the examination of the alleged violation of the right to life of Roberto Girón and Pedro Castillo, it should be recalled that, in the recent case of Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala,50 the Court underlined that in the exceptional cases in which States are permitted to impose the death penalty, this possibility is subject to a series of rigorous constraints. On the one hand, the Convention establishes that the death penalty may only be imposed for the most serious crimes (Article 4(2)) and, on the other, its application is absolutely excluded for political crimes or related common crimes (Article 4(4)). The fact that the American Convention reduces the possible sphere of application of the death penalty to the most serious crimes and not for political crimes or related common crimes reveals the intention that this punishment be considered applicable only in exceptional circumstances. 64. This Court also stresses the obligation of States to protect everyone by preventing crime, punishing those responsible, and maintaining public order, particularly in the case of acts such as those that resulted in the criminal proceedings conducted against Messrs. Girón and Castillo Mendoza; however, the States fight against crime must be conducted within limits and in keeping with procedures that permit the preservation of both public safety and full respect for human rights.51 65. That said, the Commission and the representatives argued the arbitrary violation of the right to life owing to the mandatory imposition of the death penalty established in article 175 of the Criminal Code. Based on the arguments of the parties, the Court considers that it must examine the alleged violation of Article 4(1) and 4(2) of the American Convention owing to the mandatory imposition of the death penalty established in article 175 of the Criminal Code. B.1. Mandatory imposition of the death penalty established in article 175 (Decree 1773) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Guatemala 66. The representatives argued that Messrs. Girón and Castillo were arbitrarily deprived of their life owing to the death sentence established in article 175 of the Criminal Code, which indicated that this punishment was mandatory, without taking into account the personal circumstances of the perpetrators or the particular circumstances of the crime, as established in article 65 of the Criminal Code.52 67. Accordingly, the Court must determine whether the death sentence imposed on the alleged victims in application of the said article 175 of the Criminal Code in force at the date of the judgment, conforms to Article 4 of the American Convention. Cf. Case of Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 62 to 67. Mutatis mutandis, Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, paras. 89 and 204, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 370, para. 178. 52 Article 65 established that: “In the judgment, the judge or court shall determine the corresponding punishment, within the maximum and the minimum indicated by law for each crime, taking into account the greater or lesser dangerousness of the perpetrator, the personal history of the latter and of the victim, the motive for the crime, the extent and intensity of the harm caused, and the attenuating or aggravating circumstances present in the act evaluated on the basis of their number and also on their essence or importance. The judge or court shall expressly record the elements mentioned in the preceding paragraph that it has considered determinant for regulating the punishment.” 50 51