during the hearing because, at that stage, the court had notified the parties that they had eight days in which to offer evidence and, owing to an omission of the defense counsel at that time, who had failed to sign and seal the corresponding memorandum, the sentencing court did not process it and, consequently, he was prevented from offering any evidence during the trial. 67 In addition, Mr. Ruiz Fuentes contested the trial court’s assessment of the evidence, which allegedly violated the rules of sound legal judgment.68 Lastly, he argued that the court had unduly applied article 201 of the Criminal Code failing to take into account article 46 of the Constitution and Article 4 of the American Convention, because, when Guatemala ratified the Convention, the death penalty was not established for kidnapping if the victim did not die.69 On September 13, 1999, the Fourth Chamber of the Appellate Court (hereinafter “the Appellate Court”) declared that the special remedy of appeal filed by Mr. Ruiz Fuentes and the other men who had been convicted was inadmissible. 70 57. On October 12 and November 4, 1999, Mr. Ruiz Fuentes and J.M.M.R. filed a remedy of cassation before the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (hereinafter “the Supreme Court of Justice”) against the judgment of September 13, 1999, handed down by the Appellate Court, arguing flaws of form and substance.71 On July 20, 2000, the Supreme Court of Justice declared the remedies of cassation filed by Messrs. Ruiz Fuentes, Murga Rodríguez and Raxcacó Reyes inadmissible.72 58. On August 29, 2000, Mr. Ruiz Fuentes, together with J.M.M.R., filed an application for amparo against the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice before the Constitutional Court, reiterating the reasons why he considered that the death penalty was inapplicable in his case. 73 On July 4, 2001, the Constitutional Court declared the application for amparo inadmissible. 59. On December 16, 2002, Mr. Ruiz Fuentes filed an application for judicial review before the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice against the final criminal judgment, owing to the imposition of the death penalty “even though the victim did not die.”74 He added that the death penalty was imposed “in violation of several precepts of the American Convention on Human Rights.”75 On December 1, 2003, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declared the application for review inadmissible, indicating that “on examining the probative elements provided by the defendant, it finds that they do not comply with the provisions of article 455 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because they do not constitute new probative elements that would be appropriate to substantiate a lesser sentence.”76 file, folios 105 and 106). 67 Cf. Special remedy of appeal filed by Hugo Humberto Ruiz Fuentes ante the Fourth Chamber of the Appellate Court (evidence file, folio 762). 68 Cf. Special remedy of appeal filed by Hugo Humberto Ruiz Fuentes ante the Fourth Chamber of the Appellate Court (evidence file, folios 768 to 771). 69 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Fourth Chamber of the Appellate Court of Guatemala on September 13, 1999 (evidence file, folio 108). 70 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Fourth Chamber of the Appellate Court of Guatemala on September 13, 1999 (evidence file, folios 120 and 121). 71 Cf. Remedy of cassation file don November 4, 1999 (evidence file, folios 123 to 133). 72 Regarding the application of Article 4(2) of the Convention, the Supreme Court of Justice indicated that: “At the time the American Convention on Human Rights came into force, the law already established the death penalty, and even with the amendments contained in Decrees 14-95 and 81-96 of the Congress of the Republic, the definition of the crime has not changed because it continues identifying the same conducts that it prohibited previously, and the death penalty was already applicable in certain circumstances. Consequently, the application of the death penalty was not extended to another crime, as prohibited by the said Convention; therefore, there has not been an extensive interpretation of the norm, but rather a literal interpretation. Therefore, the appeal filed in this case is inadmissible.” Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of July 20, 2000 (evidence file, folios 135 a 156). 73 Cf. Application for amparo filed on August 29, 2000 (evidence file, folio 159). 74 Cf. Application for review No. 23-2002, decision of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of December 1, 2003 (evidence file, folio 185). 75 Cf. Application for review No. 23-2002, decision of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of December 1, 2003 (evidence file, folio 197). 76 Cf. Application for review No. 23-2002, decision of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of December 16