B. Considerations of the Court 77. The Court will examine the alleged violations of the right to life based on the proceedings that culminated in the imposition of the death penalty on Mr. Ruiz Fuentes, as well as the alleged inexistence of an appeal for clemency that would have allowed him to request an amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence. The Court will make its analysis as follows: b.1 Imposition of the death penalty 78. In order to examine the alleged violation of the right to life of Hugo Humberto Ruiz Fuentes owing to the imposition of the death penalty, it should be recalled that, recently, in the case of Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala, 93 the Court emphasized that in the exceptional cases in which States are permitted to apply the death penalty, this possibility is subject to a series of strict limitations.94 On the one hand, it has been established that the death penalty may only be imposed for the most serious crimes (Article 4(2)) and, on the other, it is absolutely excluded in the case of political offenses 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 reveals its purpose of considering this punishment applicable only in exceptional circumstances. 95 79. The Court notes that article 201 of the Criminal Code of Guatemala in force at the time was applied in the instant case and, on this basis, Mr. Ruiz Fuentes was convicted of the crime of abduction or kidnapping. In the case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala, this Court has already had the opportunity to make a specific ruling on the application of the said article 201 of the Criminal Code, as well as on its content and the amendments that were introduced. In this regard, the Court notes that, in the judgment handed down by the Sixth Criminal Sentencing Court on May 14, 1999, that sentenced Mr. Ruiz Fuentes to the death penalty, Mr. Raxcacó Reyes was also convicted of exactly the same acts.96 Therefore, the Court can reiterate the analysis it made in the case of Raxcacó Reyes, insofar as the factual framework and legal analysis that resulted in the imposition of the death penalty were the same.97 b.1.1) Expansion of the list of crimes punished with the death penalty 80. The Court underlines that Article 4 of the Convention incorporates an abolitionist trend towards the death penalty which is reflected in its second paragraph which prohibits its extension “to crimes to which it does not presently apply” and, according to its paragraph 3, “[t]he death penalty shall not be reestablished in States that have abolished it.” The objective sought is to advance towards a definitive prohibition of this type of criminal punishment by means of a gradual and irreversible process to be undertaken by the States that have signed the American Convention. Thus, the decision of a State Party to the American Convention to abolish the death penalty, whenever this is adopted, becomes, ipso jure, a final and irrevocable decision. In this regard, the Convention aims at its gradual elimination, by adopting the necessary safeguards to definitively restrict its application and its scope, so that these are gradually reduced until this punishment is totally eliminated.98 81. This abolitionist trend is reflected in the Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights 93 Cf. Case of Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 10, 2019. Series C No. 376. Cf. Case of Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala, supra, para. 62. Cf. Case of Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala, supra, para. 62. 96 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Sixth Sentencing Court for Drug-trafficking and Environmental Crimes of Guatemala on May 14, 1999 (evidence file, folios 7138 to 7204). 97 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Sixth Sentencing Court for Drug-trafficking and Environmental Crimes of Guatemala on May 14, 1999 (evidence file, folios 7138 to 7204). 98 Cf. Case of Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala, supra, para. 63. 94 95 20