13 45. On June 12, 1997, the Constitutional Court, constituted as an amparo court, declared the amparo unfounded, stating that “there is no evidence of a violation of constitutional provisions that would diminish or distort the legal defense of the accused in the respective criminal trial.”50 That court did not provide specific reasoning on the unique nature of the public defense in this case, nor on the arguments regarding a violation of the right to defense for those reasons. 46. On July 3, 1997, Mr. Martínez Coronado presented a motion for clemency before the Minister of the Interior, asking that his death sentence be commuted to the maximum prison sentence of 50 years because the criminal trial against him had “violated due process [...], as during almost the entire trial [he] had a joint counsel with his co-accused, which is inadmissible [under] Article 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” 51 47. On July 16, 1997, the presidency of the Republic of Guatemala denied the petition for the remedy of clemency, stating that: [i]n this case, the accused exhausted all judicial levels [...] [and] [t]here are no grounds in the record— neither in the conduct of the accused prior to being charged, nor in his conduct in prison—to grant clemency, nor are there significant facts regarding service to the country or reasons related to justice, equity, or the public good that would justify clemency, so the request should be denied.52 48. Mr. Martínez Coronado, represented by the attorney RARM, presented a motion for review53 of the October 26, 1995, judgment, alleging the “violation of the rights to defense and due process, and a blatant miscarriage of justice.” 54 The Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Justice found that motion unfounded on October 23, 1997, stating that: it refers to new facts and evidence [...] [h]owever, the petitioner neglected to state what those new facts were, merely reiterating the arguments already put forward when the motions were filed [...]. This was confirmed in the public hearing [...] when the attorney [RARM] [who] ma[d]e use of the motion for review [...] failed to produce new evidence: “I do not have more evidence to offer than what has already been processed in the trial. I base this motion on the deficiency of the evidence produced.”55 49. On November 10, 1997, the First Court of Criminal Enforcement 56 set the date of execution for November 21 of the same year. In response, Mr. Martínez Coronado filed a motion for reversal sentenced to death on the basis of presumptions.” This remedy is not included in the body of evidence. Cf. Amparo Judgment of the Constitutional Court on June 12, 1997 (ESAP evidence file, annex 8, folios 1037 to 1043). 50 Amparo Judgment of the Constitutional Court on June 12, 1997, supra. The Constitutional Court also stated that: “the authority to judge and to enforce judgments belongs exclusively and independently to the courts of justice, which, as has been noted, does not permit the amparo to be brought before a court of review because, as has been held, the contested act is litigated in this way but arguments on the merits cannot be decided, because the task of assessing and approving them falls to the ordinary courts. Agreeing to review the contested order, as the petitioner desires, would thus be equivalent to usurping the legally defined role of the ordinary judge.” 51 Mr. Martínez also stated that the violation of the right to due process was infringed because “[...] the only witness and the witness whose testimony was decisive for sentencing, is a minor [...] for whom the [j]udge unlawfully appointed as a guardian [...] a [s]ocial [w]orker affiliated with the court itself, becoming judge and party at the same time in violation of the trial procedures established in the Civil Code [...]”. Cf. Motion for clemency presented before the Minister of the Interior on July 3, 1997 (evidence file with the Merits Report, annex 9, folios 83 to 88). 52 Resolution of the Presidency of the Republic on July 16, 1997 (evidence file with the Merits Report, annex 10, folios 89 to 91). 53 This Court notes that the motion for review was not provided in the evidentiary record. 54 Judgment issued by the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Justice on October 23, 1997 (evidence file with the Merits Report, annex 11, folios 92 to 98). 55 Cf. Judgment issued by the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Justice on October 23, 1997, supra. 56 Cf. Order of the First Court of Criminal Enforcement on November 17, 1997 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 23, folios 2296 to 2299). That order finds the motion for reversal filed by Manuel Martínez Coronado against the November 10, 1997, order inadmissible. This Court notes that the November 10, 1997, order was not provided in the evidentiary record.