3 9. The third State report of May 12, 2005, whereby the State argued that it sent an official communication to the Penitentiary Service Board requesting that all necessary efforts be done to have the required medical examination performed upon Mr. Raxcacó-Reyes, and that on May 11, 2005, the Technical Assistant of the Penitentiary Service Board stated that said examinations would be performed at the National Civil Police Hospital and that Mr. Raxcacó-Reyes would be transferred to such place. 10. The fourth State report of June 2, 2005, and its Appendixes, whereby the State argued that the required medical examinations were performed on Mr. Raxcacó-Reyes on May 16, 2005, and that, as stated by two physicians, Mr. Raxcacó-Reyes is in good health condition. 11. The brief of comments of the representatives of June 8, 2005, to the third and fourth State reports, whereby they argued that “the medical examinations performed upon Mr. Raxcacó-Reyes were not complete or thorough since the main problem associated with his chest pain and breathing condition was not properly or effectively evaluated given the impossibility to perform certain medical tests, especially the effort test,” as the medical center lacked the appropriate equipment. The good health condition report was based on X-rays and blood tests. 12. The brief of comments of the Commission of July 22, 2005, to the third and fourth State reports, whereby the Commission stated that the medical examinations performed disregarded the particular circumstances of Mr. Raxcacó-Reyes; therefore, no effort test was performed to verify his breathing condition. 13. The judgment on the merits and reparations issued by the Inter-American Court on September 15, 2005, in the Case of Raxcacó-Reyes v. Guatemala, whereby the Court ordered, among other things, that: […] 5. The State must amend, within a reasonable time limit, Article 201 of the Criminal Code in force to provide for different and specific crime definitions in order to determine the different forms of kidnapping or abduction on the basis of their characteristics, the seriousness of the events and the circumstances surrounding the crime, with the pertinent provisions as to the different proportional penalties, as well as the acknowledgment of the right of the judicial authorities to individualize the applicable penalties in consistency with the particulars of the event and the author, within a maximum and minimum penalty threshold to be established for each particular crime. Under no circumstances shall said amendment broaden the list of crimes punishable by death before ratification of the American Convention. 6. While the above mentioned amendments are still pending, the State must refrain from applying the death penalty and execute convicted prisoners for the crime of kidnapping and abduction, as set forth in paragraph 132 of [the] Judgment. […] 8. The State must vacate the sentence imposed on Raxcacó-Reyes under the judgment delivered by the Sixth Trial Court for Criminal, Drug-trafficking and Environmental Offenses […] within a reasonable time limit and shall, without the need to conduct a new trial, issue another judgment that shall not, in any way, provide for a death penalty sentence. The State must guarantee that the new sentence is proportional to the nature and seriousness of the crime and consider any mitigating or aggravating factors. In doing so and prior to imposing a new sentence, the parties shall be afforded the opportunity to exercise the right to be heard in open court. […]