35 that the penultimate part of article 132 of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional, and that as a result of this ruling, the dangerousness of the agent as a criterion to apply the death penalty had ceased to have effect on the day following the publication of the judgment of constitutional control. Therefore, the Inter-American Court concluded that the State had complied fully with the reparation “to refrain from applying the part of article 132 of the Criminal Code of Guatemala that refers to the dangerousness of the agent and to amend this provision within a reasonable time, aligning it with the American Convention, pursuant to its Article 2, in order to guarantee respect for the principle of legality established in Article 9 of this international instrument,” ordered in the eighth operative paragraph of that judgment.126 137. Also, in the said order of February 6, 2019, the Court indicated that currently there were no prisoners sentenced to death, and that capital punishment had not been applied since 2002. In addition, it took note of the general suspension of the application of this punishment linked to compliance with the measure of reparation related to the obligation to regulate commutations of sentence in the Guatemalan jurisdiction.127 138. In addition, regarding the representatives’ request for the amendment of article 175 of the Criminal Code in one of the measures of non-repetition requested, it should be noted that the said article was derogated by Decree No. 09-2009 (supra para. 35) on the Law against sexual violence and exploitation and trafficking of persons. 139. In this regard, it is not appropriate to reiterate to Guatemala measures of reparation on the alignment of the provisions of its domestic laws with the American Convention, because amendments have already been introduced in relation to the dangerousness of the agent in article 132 of the Guatemalan Criminal Code and with the derogation of article 175 of the Criminal Code. D. Compensation 140. In relation to pecuniary compensation, the representatives indicated that the expenses related to the time spent in prison by Roberto Girón and Pedro Castillo Mendoza, together with their funeral expenses, fell under the heading of consequential damage and they asked that the Court establish, in equity, the sum of US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars), to be shared equally among the surviving siblings of Pedro Castillo Mendoza, as he had neither wife nor children, as follows: for Berta Lidia Mendoza and Dora Alicia Castillo Mendoza, and the heirs of Blanca Delia Castillo Mendoza, the sum of US$6,000.00 (six thousand United States dollars), and for Oscar Castillo Mendoza, the sum of US$2,000.00 (two thousand), and an equal sum shared equally between the two sons of Roberto Girón and, if it is not possible to identify them, this should be received by his heirs, or if they are all deceased, the Court should deposit the sum as a donation to the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund. 141. Regarding loss of earnings, the representatives made a calculation as of April 1993, because Roberto Girón and Pedro Castillo Mendoza worked as day laborers, earning 84 quetzals bi-monthly, as they mentioned in their preliminary statements, and they both did the same kind of work. It should be mentioned that this was not a steady job, rather the work was temporary and sporadic; however, it allowed them to support themselves. Therefore, the amount should be established, in equity, based on the minimum wage recognized in Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra, considering paragraph 14, and Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, eighth operative paragraph. 127 Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra, considering paragraph 8. 126