12 American Convention. They pointed out that in the Penal Code; there are another two rules that prescribe the punishment of death penalty for the dangerousness of the agent: The crime of parricide established in Section 131 and magnicide of Section 383. With regard to the crimes that have included the death penalty as punishment, it can be mentioned the crime of extrajudicial execution provided for in Section 132 bis, forced disappearance provided for in Section 201st., and the aggravated crime as a result of Section 52 of the Drug-Trafficking Act. Besides, the Guatemalan legislation provides for a crime with the compulsory punishment of death penalty and that is, the crime of aggravated rape of Section 179 of the Penal Code. Furthermore, they informed that seven people who were convicted under the terms of Section 132 of the Guatemalan Penal Code have a chance of being executed, since the State has neither revoked nor commuted the death sentence. In this sense, they informed that the Supreme Court of Justice, at the beginning, admitted appeals for review filed with it by several people convicted to death penalty for the crime of kidnapping or abduction and, in compliance with the order of this Court, it reversed six judgments dealing with abduction. Notwithstanding, “as from September, 2006, the Supreme Court of Justice reversed its own case-law and placed little value on the decision of the [Inter-American] Court denying the appeals for review then filed that were intended to set aside the judgments on death penalty. These decisions would have, besides, been confirmed by the Court on Constitutional matters, which it is concerning since they have set case law as to the fact that such decisions are binding on all the Guatemalan courts but they do not acknowledged the compulsory and binding nature of the Judgments delivered by this Court. Moreover, they expressed that even though since the year 2005, the courts have not imposed the death penalty as punishment, the prosecutors have in fact asked for death penalty in several proceedings and that State’s officials have publicly stated the need to accelerate the executions. 41. That the Commission pointed out that the State has the obligation to supply effective and suitable judicial remedies in order to review the death sentences imposed for those criminal types that are incompatible with the American Convention The Commission notes that there is no legislative initiative to obtain the effective modification of said provisions, though there is a bill that continues under study of the Executive branch. Therefore, the Commission considered it is vital to make an effort in order to submit bills to the national Legislative branch in order to amend said sections of the Penal Code. 42. That according to the arguments of the parties, the State has not complied with these parts of the Judgments, in spite of the fact that the reform of such rules of the Penal Code is a basic aspect of such decisions. 43. That the States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with the protected rights) but also in connection with procedural rules, such as the ones concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. Such obligations are intended to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, taking into account the special nature of human rights treaties.4 As the representatives pointed out, if the domestic superior judicial instances do not enforce 4 See Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile; Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Supra note 3, considering clause six and Case of Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 3, considering clause four.