18 Guatemalan Constitution in force55 and indicated that the President of the Republic, in Decision No. 281-96122 of July 17, 1996, rejected this without due reasoning. They indicated that an application for amparo was filed against this decision before the Constitutional Court, in its capacity as Special Amparo Chamber, and this was decided on August 9, 1996; but, according to the representatives, “neither did this have the necessary conditions to be effective." According to the representatives, it appears that the system of appeals available under domestic law to achieve the commutation of a death sentence did not have the effectiveness required in the international sphere. In this regard, the decision of July 12, 1996, reveals that Guatemala processed and decided the request for clemency (supra para. 53) in compliance with the obligation derived from Article 4(6) and in observance of its international obligations. Consequently, the Court considers that, in the instant case, it did not violate Article 4(6) of the Convention. C. Conclusion 74. Based on the foregoing, taking into consideration that the death sentence imposed on Roberto Girón and Pedro Castillo Mendoza and their subsequent execution by firing squad resulted from the mandatory imposition of the death penalty pursuant to article 175 of the Criminal Code, this Court concludes that, in the instant case, the State is responsible for the arbitrary deprivation of life in violation of Article 4(1) and 4(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of Roberto Girón and Pedro Castillo Mendoza, without prejudice to the violations determined in the chapter on judicial guarantees (infra para. 123). In addition, the Court considers that Guatemala did not violate Article 4(6) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. VIII-2 PERSONAL INTEGRITY56 A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 75. The Commission argued that the execution of the alleged victims transmitted by television constituted an act of humiliation and that one of them had to be given a coup de grâce because he had not died from the bullets fired by the firing squad. The Commission also argued that there were alternatives to execution by firing squad which caused less suffering. It added that the method of execution by firing squad constituted an act of torture to the detriment of Messrs. Girón and Castillo and concluded that the State had violated Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations of Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument and Articles 1 and 6 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (ICPPT). 76. The representatives argued that the death penalty and the time spent awaiting the execution caused Messrs. Girón and Castillo to endure an emotional situation of permanent anguish, and added that this emotional situation is usually aggravated if prison conditions are deficient. On this point, they specified that the alleged victims were imprisoned in “windowless cells” and in isolation within the Canada Model Prison. In addition, they argued that the method used to execute the death penalty by firing squad on September 13, 1996, was not the one that caused the least suffering because it produced prolonged agony and pain for the alleged victims, revealed by the case of Pedro Castillo Mendoza, who did not die from the bullets fired by the squad, but had to receive a “coup de grâce.” In addition to this, they stressed that the execution of the death penalty was publicized because it was transmitted by national 55 56 Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala, supra. Article 5 of the American Convention.