of Article 5(1) and (2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument.175 Therefore, to determine the existence of a violation of personal integrity derived from imprisonment on death row, it is necessary to examine the personal circumstances of the individual and the particularities of the case in order to assess whether a certain treatment or punishment reaches the minimum level of severity to be categorized as cruel, inhuman or degrading.176 136. The Court notes, first, that, for 6 years and 5 months, Mr. Ruiz Fuentes remained under a constant threat that at any moment he could be executed. During that time, he had to consider the perspective of his life being extinguished as a result of his sentence. 177 The Court also underscores that the way in which a death sentence is imposed may constitute a factor that determines its incompatibility with the provisions of Article 5 of the American Convention.178 The Court notes that Mr. Ruiz Fuentes was sentenced to death in criminal proceedings during which clear violations of Article 4(2) and (6) of the Convention occurred, and in violation of several principles related to due process of law in the context of criminal proceedings (see infra paras. 146 to 168). The Court considers that the criminal proceedings to which Mr. Ruiz Fuentes was subjected, which also resulted in the imposition of the death penalty, could have caused him profound suffering, anguish, anxiety, frustration and stress, which could even derive in some type of post-traumatic stress disorder, as has happened in other cases of individuals sentenced to death. 179 137. Consequently, the Court concludes that Mr. Ruiz Fuentes endured severe mental suffering due to the anguish of being held on death row following proceedings that had numerous flaws, and this violated his right to physical, mental and moral integrity recognized in Article 5(1) of the American Convention and constituted cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 5(2) thereof, all in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. VIII-4 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION180 A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 138. Regarding the criminal proceedings against Mr. Ruiz Fuentes, the Commission argued that Mr. Ruiz Fuentes was prevented from presenting exculpatory evidence because the person defending him omitted a formality that resulted in the court failing to process the memorandum offering evidence. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the omission and inaction of the state judicial authority engaged the international responsibility of the State because judges are obliged to exercise a control of proceedings ensuring that anyone subject to a criminal trial may exercise their right of defense. Second, the Commission indicated that the special remedy of appeal filed by Mr. Ruiz Fuentes against the judgment sentencing him to death did not meet inter-American standards under Article 8(2)(h). Lastly, the Commission considered that none of the remedies filed by Mr. Ruiz Fuentes were effective because the merits of the issues he raised concerning due process were not examined. 139. In relation to the investigation of the acts of torture suffered by Mr. Ruiz Fuentes at the time of his arrest on August 6, 1997, the Commission indicated that, at that date, the Guatemalan State Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, supra, paras. 167 to 172, and Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 100 to 102. 176 Cf. Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226, para. 76. See also, ECHR, Case of Ireland v. the United Kingdom, no. 5310/71, Judgment of January 18, 1978, para. 162; Case of Jalloh v. Germany [GS], no. 54810/00, Judgment of July 11, 2006, para. 67, and Case of Bouyid v. Belgium [GS], no. 23380/09, Judgment of September 28, 2015, para. 86. 177 Cf. Expert opinion of Aída Castro Conde of May 18, 2005 (evidence file, folio 7531). See also, Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, supra, para. 168. 178 Cf. ECHR, Case of Soering v. the United Kingdom [GS], supra, para. 106, and Case of Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, Judgment of April 12, 2005, para. 333. 179 Cf. Expert opinion of Aída Castro Conde of May 18, 2005 (evidence file, folio 7528). 180 Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 175 34