2 1. The State violated to the detriment of Raxcacó-Reyes the rights enshrined in Articles 4(1), 4(2) and 4(6) of the American Convention on Human Rights in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, as set forth in paragraphs 54 to 90 of [the] Judgment. 2. The State violated to the detriment of Raxcacó-Reyes the Right to Humane Treatment enshrined in Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention on Human rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, as set forth in paragraphs 93 to 102 of [the] Judgment. 3. It has not been proven that the State violated to the detriment of Raxcacó-Reyes the Right to Judicial Protection enshrined in Article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, for the reasons set forth in paragraphs 110 to 113 of [the] Judgment. 4. [The] judgment is in and of itself a form of redress, as set forth in paragraph 131 [there]in. AND RULE[D]: Unanimously, that: 5. The State must amend, within a reasonable time limit, Article 201 of the Criminal Code in force to provide for different and specific crime definitions in order to determine the different forms of kidnapping or abduction on the basis of their characteristics, the seriousness of the events and the circumstances surrounding the crime, with the pertinent provisions as to the different proportional penalties, as well as the acknowledgment of the right of the judicial authorities to individualize the applicable penalties in consistency with the particulars of the event and the author, within a maximum and minimum penalty threshold to be established for each particular crime. Under no circumstances shall said amendment broaden the list of crimes punishable by death before ratification of the American Convention. 6. While the above mentioned amendments are still pending, the State must refrain from applying the death penalty and execute convicted prisoners for the crime of kidnapping and abduction, as set forth in paragraph 132 of [the] Judgment. 7. The State must adopt, within a reasonable time limit, a procedure that guarantees that any person sentenced to death is entitled to apply for and, if appropriate, be granted a pardon under certain rules that provide for the authority empowered to grant it, the legal basis for its granting and the related procedure. In these cases, the sentence must not be executed while the decision on a request for pardon or commutation is pending. 8. The State must vacate the sentence imposed on Raxcacó-Reyes under the judgment delivered by the Sixth Trial Court for Criminal, Drug-trafficking and Environmental Offenses […] within a reasonable time limit and shall, without the need to conduct a new trial, issue another judgment that shall not, in any way, provide for a death penalty sentence. The State must guarantee that the new sentence is proportional to the nature and seriousness of the crime and consider any mitigating or aggravating factors. In doing so and prior to imposing a new sentence, the parties shall be afforded the opportunity to exercise the right to be heard in open court. 9. The State must adopt, within a reasonable time limit, the necessary measures to ensure that prison conditions conform to international standards. 10. The State must provide Raxcacó-Reyes, free of charge and at national healthcare facilities, with his prior consent and for the necessary period of time from the date the notice of [the] Judgment is served upon it, with any medical and psychological treatment that duly qualified specialists might prescribe and which shall comprise provision of medicines. 11. The State must adopt, from the date the notice of [the] Judgment is served upon it, the necessary measures to allow Olga Isabel Vicente to regularly visit Raxcacó-Reyes.