time it had been working on this and had made significant progress. An example of this was the PNC law currently in force, Decree No. 11-97, which established aspects such as: (a) the main functions; (b) the organizational structure; (c) the basic action principles; (d) the PNC career; (e) hierarchical levels, ranks and promotions; (f) appointments and dismissals; (g) administrative situations; (h) rights, obligations, prohibitions and assignments; (i) disciplinary regime; (j) criminal procedural regime; (k) financial system, and (l) educational system. 218. With regard to the measure requested relating to adequate judicial control, the State indicated that disciplinary regimes and mechanisms existed for all public servants and professionals established by the different professional associations, through the “honor court.”245 c.2.1) Adaptation of domestic law to the American Convention 219. Regarding the legal framework regulating the death penalty, the Court notes that, in the case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala, it had already ordered the following: […] i. (i) Modification, within a reasonable period, of article 201 of the Criminal Code in force, in order to define various specific crime categories that distinguish the different forms of kidnapping or abduction based on their characteristics, the gravity of the facts, and the circumstances of the crime, with the corresponding provision of different punishments, proportionate to each category, and the empowerment of the courts to individualize punishments in keeping with the specifics of the crime and the perpetrator, within the maximum and minimum limits that each crime category should include. This modification should, under no circumstances, expand the list of crimes punishable with the death penalty established prior to ratification of the American Convention. While reforming this article, the State must abstain from applying the death penalty and executing those convicted exclusively of the crime of kidnapping or abduction. (ii) Adoption, within a reasonable period, of a procedure that ensures that any person condemned to death has the right to apply for and, if applicable, obtain a pardon or commutation of sentence, in accordance with a regulation that establishes the authority empowered to grant this, the presumptions of admissibility and the respective procedure; in these cases, the sentence must not be executed while the decision on the pardon or commutation of sentence applied for is pending. 246 220. Therefore, the Court considers that it is not necessary to reiterate to Guatemala measures of reparation on the adaptation of their domestic law to the American Convention in this regard because compliance with the said measures is currently being analyzed by the Court at the stage of monitoring compliance with the corresponding judgment. 221. Regarding the adaptation of article 201 bis of the Guatemalan Criminal Code to international standards as regard the definition of the crime of torture, the Court notes that, currently, the said article indicates: Anyone who by order or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of State authorities intentionally inflicts on another person severe pain or suffering, either physical or mental, in order to obtain from them or from a third party information or a confession of an act that they have committed or that they are suspected of having committed, or who seeks to intimidate a person or, by this means, other persons, commits the crime of torture. […] The person or persons responsible for the crime of torture shall be sanctioned with twenty-five to thirty years’ imprisonment. 222. The Court notes that, indeed, this article does not comply with the minimum requirements established in Article 2 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, which According to the State, the fundamental legal regime for the disciplinary procedure applied by the court of honor of the Guatemala Lawyers and Notaries Professional Association is based, inter alia, on articles 18 and 19 of the law on compulsory membership in a professional association, Decree No. 72-2001 of the Congress of the Republic, and the representatives of the alleged victims cannot argue their ignorance in this regard. 246 Cf. Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala, supra, para. 132. 245 49