3 d. The State is responsible of the violation to Mr. Fermín Ramírez’s right set forth in Article 25 of the American Convention by imposing the death penalty in a criminal procedure that did not adjust to the rules of the due process and because the Guatemalan judicial authorities abstained from exercising an effective protection of the rights that were violated during said process. e. The State is responsible of the violation of the right set forth in Article 4 of the American Convention with regard to Article 1(1) of the same instrument due to the possible execution of the death penalty imposed on Fermín Ramírez in a criminal process in which the rights to a due process of law and an effective judicial protection were violated. Based on the analysis and the conclusions of the Report, the Commission made the following recommendations to the State: 1. Grant Fermín Ramírez reparations that include leaving without effect the sentence imposed and the realization of a new trial with complete observance of the due process of law. 2. Take the necessary measures to prevent that the acts that originated the violations established in [said] report be repeated. 8. On March 12, 2004, the Commission forwarded the Report on Merits No. 35/04 to the State and asked it to inform of the measures adopted to comply with the recommendations included in said report, within two months as of the date on which it was sent. Through a note of the same date, the Commission informed the petitioner that it had approved Report No. 35/04, and requested that it provide the information referred to in Article 43(3) of its Rules of Procedure, with regard to its position over the possibility to present the case before the Inter-American Court. 9. On March 31, 2004, the petitioners presented their response to the Commission’s communication of March 12, 2004, in which they stated that it was pertinent to submit the case to the Inter-American Court, since this could avoid the predominance of the internal jurisprudence criterion according to which no prior warning is required from the Court for the variation of the legal classification of the crime, and that the defendant’s right to a defense be violated in the cases of murder, by demanding that the accusation courts prove and discuss the danger of the convicted author in order to impose the death penalty. 10. On September 9, 2004 the Commission decided to present the case before the Court “due to lack of compliance by the State of the recommendations of the report.” IV PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT 11. On September 12, 2004 the Commission submitted the application to the Court (supra para. 1). 12. The Commission appointed Mrs. Susana Villarán and Mr. Santiago A. Canton as delegates, and Messrs. Ariel Dulitzky, Victor Hugo Madrigal, and Mrs. María Claudia Pulido as legal advisors.