Guatemalan Criminal Code under which Mr. Ruiz Fuentes was sentenced violated Article 4(2) of the Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument.108 Regarding the alleged violation of Article 4(1) of the Convention in relation to the imposition of the death penalty, the Court notes that this was never executed, because the alleged victim died due to circumstances other than the eventual execution of the death sentence. Therefore, it considers that the State did not violate Article 4(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, without prejudice to the Court making the corresponding analysis and determinations in the following chapter on the right to life. b.2 Right to appeal for clemency, a pardon or commutation of sentence 90. On December 16, 2003, Mr. Ruiz Fuentes filed an appeal for clemency before the Guatemalan Minister of the Interior requesting commutation of the death penalty that had been imposed for the penalty immediately below this of fifty-years’ imprisonment. Both the file before the Court and the evidence provided by the parties and the Commission reveal that the Ministry of the Interior failed to process this appeal. Moreover, although in its final written arguments the State indicated that it had commuted Mr. Ruíz Fuentes’ punishment for the maximum term of imprisonment, it did not provide the necessary evidence for the Court to be able to verify this assertion. 91. That said, the Court recalls that it has already ruled in this regard in the cases of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala and Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala, and indicated that the abrogation of Decree No. 159 of 1892 (supra para. 44) resulted in the elimination of the power granted to a State organ to hear and decide the right to clemency stipulated in Article 4(6) of the Convention,109 a right that also forms part of the international corpus juris.110 Therefore, the Court considered that the State had failed to comply with the obligation derived from Article 4(6) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument.111 In the instant case, the Court reaches a similar conclusion. b.3 Violation of Article 2 of the American Convention 92. In relation to the preceding considerations, the Court recalls that Article 2 of the American Convention obliges the States Parties to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of the Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights or freedoms protected by the Convention. It must be reaffirmed that the obligation to adapt domestic law is only met when the necessary and appropriate reforms have been made.112 93. In this case, the Court finds that the State failed to comply with Article 2 of the Convention because article 201 of the Guatemalan Criminal Code, which punished any form of abduction or kidnapping with the mandatory death penalty and expanded the number of crimes sanctioned with this punishment, violated this provision of the Convention.113 Also, and as previously indicated (supra para. 91), the lack of domestic legislation to give effect to the right to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence, pursuant to Article 4(6) of the American Convention, constituted a further failure to comply with its Article 2. Cf. Mutatis mutandis, Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 81 and 82. Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 107, and Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala, supra, para. 85. 110 Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala, supra, para. 109. 111 Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala, supra, para. 110, and Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala, supra, para. 90. 112 Cf. Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala, supra, para. 89 and Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 89. 113 Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala, supra, para. 110, and Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala, supra, para. 88. 108 109 23