15 Criminal Affairs of the Municipality of Mixco, Department of Guatemala. Subsequently, the prosecutor from the Public Prosecutor’s Office (Ministerio Público) charged these people with committing the crime of kidnapping or abduction, defined in Article 201 of the Penal Code of Guatemala, in force at the time of the facts (supra para. 43(4)), and this initiated the proceedings.13 43(10) On May 14, 1999, the Guatemalan Sixth Court for Criminal Sentencing, DrugTrafficking and Environmental Crimes delivered judgment convicting Mr. Raxcacó Reyes and the other accused. Ronald Raxcacó Reyes, Jorge Mario Murga Rodríguez and Hugo Humberto Ruiz Fuentes were sentenced to death, as established in Article 201 of the Penal Code (supra para. 43(4)), as they were found to be “direct authors” of the crime of kidnapping or abduction; Carlos Manuel García Morales was declared to be an “author” of the same crime and received a 40-year incommutable prison sentence, and Olga Isabel Vicente was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment, for her participation in the facts as an “accomplisce.”14 43(11) This judgment (supra para. 43(10)) was accompanied by the separate opinion of Judge Silvia Morales Alvarado, a members of the Sixth Court for Criminal Sentencing, Drug-Trafficking and Environmental Crimes of Guatemala, in which she stated that: Decree No. 81/96 of the Congress of the Republic of Guatemala, which imposes the death penalty for the crime of kidnapping, was issued by the Congress of the Republic […] on September 19, 1996; namely more than 20 years after the entry into force for Guatemala of the [American] Convention; therefore this reform of the Penal Code violates the Constitution and the constitutional laws, since it is an ordinary decree with the rank of an ordinary law. This decree constitutes an expansion of the crime defined in Article 201 of the Penal Code, because, prior to the reform the death penalty was not applied in cases in which the victim of a kidnapping did not die; consequently this expansion violates the provisions of the Pact of San José. Judges, whatsoever their hierarchy, should not disregard the existence, exercise and positivity of the [American] Convention as a law of the Republic, let alone issue opinions and deliver judgments that violate, diminish or distort it, because such judgments would be null ipso jure.15 43(12) On July 9, 1999, the special remedies of appeal filed by Ronald Raxcacó Reyes, Hugo Humberto Ruiz Fuentes and Jorge Mario Murga against the judgment delivered on May 14, 1999, by the Guatemalan Sixth Court for Criminal Sentencing, Drug-Trafficking and Environmental Crimes were declared admissible (supra para. 43(10)).16 Mr. Raxcacó Reyes based his appeal17 on the grounds: that the court had erroneously applied the death penalty based on a law that violated the constitutional 13 Cf. judgment delivered by the Sixth Court on Criminal Sentencing, Drug-Trafficking and Environmental Crimes of Guatemala on May 14, 1999 (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 5, folio 111). 14 Cf. judgment delivered by the Sixth Court on Criminal Sentencing, Drug-Trafficking and Environmental Crimes of Guatemala on May 14, 1999 (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 5, folios 100-165). 15 Cf. separate opinion of Judge Silvia Morales Alvarado to the judgment delivered by the Sixth Court on Criminal Sentencing, Drug-Trafficking and Environmental Crimes of Guatemala on May 14, 1999 (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 5, folios 168-169). 16 Cf. judgment delivered by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Guatemala on September 13, 1999 (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 9, folio 176). 17 Cf. judgment delivered by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Guatemala on September 13, 1999 (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 9, folio 183).