aspects of the judgment.201 159. That said, the Court notes that the Guatemalan Code of Criminal Procedure includes two remedies that are intended to comply with the right to appeal the judgment; the special remedy of appeal and the remedy of cassation. Regarding the remedy of appeal, article 430 of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicates: “Article 430. The judgment may never refer to the evidence or the facts that have been declared proven pursuant to the rules of sound and reasoned judgment. It may only refer to them for application of the substantive law or when there is evident contradiction in the appealed judgment." 160. This reveals that the special remedy of appeal is limited to a certain extent, because it only permits a review of the facts “for application of the substantive law or when there is evident contradiction in the appealed judgment.” 161. Meanwhile, the remedy of cassation is regulated as follows: “Article 442. The court of cassation shall only examine the legal errors contained in the appealed ruling. It is subject to the facts that have been considered proven by the sentencing court, and only in cases in which it notes a violation of the constitutional or legal norm is it able to require the annulment and returning for the required corrections.” 162. This article reveals that the remedy of cassation does not permit a review of the facts or the evidence, only of the law. 163. The Court recalls that Mr. Ruiz Fuentes and the other two individuals sentenced to death filed a special remedy of appeal based on the substance and form of the judgment delivered by the Sixth Criminal Sentencing Court on May 14, 1999.202 Mr. Ruiz Fuentes substantiated his appeal by arguing that: (i) the sentencing court considered proven facts other than those described in the indictment, thereby affecting his right of defense; (ii) he was deprived of his right to offer and provide evidence during the hearing; (iii) there had been an erroneous assessment of the evidence by the judge a quo, and (iv) the court had applied article 201 of the Criminal Code unduly, failing to take into account article 46 of the Constitution and Article 4 of the Convention because, when the latter was ratified, the death penalty was not established for kidnapping when the victim did not die.203 164. On September 13, 1999, the Appellate Court declared the special remedy of appeal filed by Mr. Ruiz Fuentes and the other convicted men inadmissible. 204 As relevant for this section, this Court underlines that the Appellate Court indicated the following as regards the argument that it had considered proven facts other than those in the indictment: “In its judgment, this Chamber may never refer to the evidence or facts that have been declared proven based on the rules of sound and reasoned judgment; the decision is correct. Therefore, it is concluded that the facts found proven by the court are true.”205 165. Regarding the arguments concerning the erroneous assessment of the evidence according to the rules of sound judgment, the Appellate Court indicated: Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra, paras. 161, 164 and 165, and Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru, supra, para. 172. 202 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Fourth Chamber of the Appellate Court of Guatemala on September 13, 1999 (evidence file, folio 100). 203 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Fourth Chamber of the Appellate Court of Guatemala on September 13, 1999 (evidence file, folios 105 to 108). 204 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Fourth Chamber of the Appellate Court of Guatemala on September 13, 1999 (evidence file, folios 120 and 121). 205 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Fourth Chamber of the Appellate Court of Guatemala on September 13, 1999 (evidence file, folios 112 and 113). 201 39