VIII-1 RIGHT TO LIFE DUE TO THE IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY ON MR. RUIZ FUENTES92 71. In this chapter, the Court will examine the arguments concerning the imposition of the death penalty, as well as the access to a pardon or an appeal for clemency that would permit commutation of the sentence. A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 72. With regard to the imposition of the death penalty, the Commission stressed that article 201 of the Guatemalan Criminal Code was applied and the Court has already examined this in previous cases. Accordingly, it concluded that the State was responsible for imposing the death penalty on Mr. Ruiz Fuentes for a conduct that was not established as warranting the death penalty when the State ratified the American Convention. The Commission also considered that the domestic courts had failed to examine the problem of the automatic application of the death penalty. Lastly, the Commission recalled that Mr. Ruiz Fuentes presented an appeal for clemency before the Ministry of the Interior and that, at the time the case was submitted, the State failed to provide any information indicating that the appeal had been decided, merely indicating that, when the petition was lodged before the Commission, this procedure was in progress and, therefore, this remedy needed to be exhausted. 73. Regarding the death sentence, the representatives argued that this sentence was delivered in contravention of the provisions of the Convention because it was imposed based on the provisions of article 201 of the Guatemalan Criminal Code. They indicated that the Court had already referred to the application of this article in the case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala in which it established that article 201 was applied “disregarding the limitation imposed by Article 4(2) of the American Convention that the death penalty may be imposed only for the most serious crimes.” The representatives concluded that, since the instant case refers to the same facts as those of the case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala, and that the same rules were applied in both cases and the two men were convicted for the same crime, the Court should rule similarly. 74. Lastly, with regard to the appeal for clemency made by Mr. Ruiz Fuentes, they mentioned that this was not processed due to the lack of appropriate regulations. In their final written arguments, the representatives underlined that the State had argued that, in the case of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes, his sentence had been commuted to the maximum term of imprisonment, offering as evidence that, at this date, Mr. Raxcacó Reyes remains in prison. In this regard, they stressed that the death penalty imposed on Mr. Raxcacó Reyes was commuted in 2007 as a result of the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala; in other words, two years after Mr. Ruiz Fuentes was presumably extrajudicially executed. 75. Regarding the imposition of the death penalty on Mr. Ruiz Fuentes, the State argued that this punishment was “modified and/or commuted for the maximum term of imprisonment” in compliance with the provisions of the American Convention. Additionally, it mentioned that this modification was also applied to Ronald Ernesto Raxcacó Reyes, co-perpetrator of the crime committed by Mr. Ruiz Fuentes. 76. Regarding the appeal for clemency, the State indicated that this had not been decided owing to the inexistence of a relevant procedure. It indicated that, following the escape and death of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes, the appeal ceased to have a purpose. It added that it had not been necessary to decide the appeal for clemency presented by Mr. Ruiz Fuentes because the punishment had already been commuted to imprisonment. 92 Article 4 of the American Convention. 19