21 81. In addition, various international bodies have indicated that methods of executions such as stoning,71 gas asphyxiation,72 “injection of untested lethal drugs, […] burning and burying alive[,] public executions [… and] other painful and humiliating methods of execution”73 constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment that violates the right to personal integrity. 82. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions has indicated that public executions constitute failure to comply with the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.74 Also, the Commission on Human Rights has indicated that the execution of capital punishment “shall not be carried out in public or in any other degrading manner.75 In this sense, the Human Rights Council has urged States to refrain from conducting public executions because: “public executions are […] incompatible with human dignity.”76 83. That said, in the instant case, it has been proved that Messrs. Girón and Castillo were sentenced to death and, subsequently, executed by firing squad (Decree No. 234)77 for the perpetration of a crime established in article 175 of the Criminal Code. It has also been proved that the execution of the death sentence of Messrs. Girón and Castillo was suspended on two occasions78 and that the execution of the alleged victims was transmitted by television. 84. In their opinion provided by affidavit, expert witnesses Edward Fitzgerald and Parvais Jabbar stated that “the death row phenomenon begins from the moment […] that sentence is handed down and the convicted man has to contemplate the perspective of his execution.”79 On this point, the Court has indicated that the waiting time between the moment at which the death sentence is handed down and its execution produces mental anguish, extreme tension, Cf. Commission on Human Rights, The question of the death penalty, Resolution 2005/59 (2005), para. 7.i; Human Rights Committee, Consideration of reports presented by States Parties under Article 40 of the Covenant: Sudan, CCPR/C/79/Add.85 (1997), para. 9; Human Rights Committee, Consideration of reports presented by States Parties under Article 40 of the Covenant: Yemen, CCPR/CO/84/YEM (2005), para. 15; Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, Mission to Nigeria A/HRC/7/3/Add.4 (2007), summary, p. 2, and para. 56; Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, A/HRC/7/3 (2008), para. 40; ECHR. Jabari v. Turkey no. 40035/98, Judgment of July 11, 2000, paras. 41 and 42. 72 Cf. Human Rights Committee, Chitat Ng vs. Canada, CCPR/C/49/D/469/1991 (1994), para. 16.3. 73 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36 on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life, supra, para. 40. 74 Cf. Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.3 (2006), para. 43. 75 Cf. Commission on Human Rights, The question of the death penalty, Resolution 2005/59 (2005), para. 7.i. 76 Human Rights Council, Question of the death penalty, A/HRC/39/19 (2018), para. 38. See also, Human Rights Committee, Consideration of reports presented by States Parties under Article 40 of the Covenant: Nigeria, CCPR/C/79/Add.65 (1996), para. 16; Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36 on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life, supra, para. 44; Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 20 (1992), supra, para. 6; Human Rights Council, Question of the death penalty, A/HRC/24/18 (2013), paras. 59 to 61, and Human Rights Council, Capital punishment and the implementation of the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, A/HRC/30/18 (2015), paras. 30 to 32. 77 Article 7 of Decree No. 234 established that: “Following the reading of the decision, the prisoner shall be blindfolded; the head guard shall then place the squad responsible for the execution at a distance of six meters from the prisoner, in two separate rows, and shall give the order to fire to the first row. If necessary, the second row will repeat the shots. The forensic physician or the Health Unit that, by court order, must be present at executions, shall examine the person executed and decide whether a coup de grâce is required. When the execution has concluded, the order will be given to bury the corpse or it will be delivered to the next of kin who have requested this.” Diario de Centro América, Volume XLVI, Decree Number 234. 78 The first suspension was granted by an order of the First Court for execution of sentence of Guatemala on July 15, 1996, owing to the presentation of the request for clemency to the President of the Republic. The second suspension was granted by means of a provisional amparo, owing to an application for amparo contesting the President’s decision to deny the request for clemency. 79 Expert opinion of Edward Fitzgerald and Parvais Jabbar provided to the Court by affidavit (evidence file, affidavits and expert opinions, fs. 3061 to 3087). 71