19 In the verdict the court may give the act a legal classification different to that of the indictment or the order for trial to commence, or impose greater or lower sentences than those requested by the Office of the Public Prosecutor.28 54(18) In the judgment of March 6, 1998 the Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Trial Court considered as credited [the acts] of which the aggrieved minor was object; III) The presence of the defendant FERMÍN RAMÍREZ AND/OR FERMÍN RAMÍREZ ORDOÑEZ, where the acts occurred; IV) The arrest of the accused party FERMÍN RAMÍREZ AND/OR FERMÍN RAMÍREZ ORDOÑEZ; V) The presence of AB type blood in the right extremity of the dead minor’s body belonging to the same blood type as the defendants, and presence of SEMEN in the vaginal sample taken from the minor [in] her underwear and [in the] defendant’s underpants.29 In its considerations the Tribunal reasoned, inter alia, that [it is the judge’s obligation to] vote in each of the matters to be decided in the present judgment, as per the rules of reasoned competent analysis […] Likewise, pursuant with the Law, the judgment may not consider other facts or circumstances different to those described in the indictment or the order for trial to commence as demonstrated, reason for which after the corresponding deliberation and vote the following conclusions are reached: […] E) In virtue of the evidence previously analyzed and assessed, the truth of how the facts occurred is completely established, facts that were proven through the scientific means established for that effect during the debate, such as the reports and statements of the expert witnesses […] received during the debate, which verify the defendant’s participation in the acts under investigation, since the medical, chemical, and photographic analysis are conclusive and corroborate that stated by the eyewitnesses in each of the moments that lead to the violent death of the minor GRINDI YASMIN FRANCO TORRES, as well as the moments following it […]. […] F) [Mr. Fermín Ramírez’s version] results unlikely and is taken as a means of defense, pursuant with Article sixteen of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala, which states that in the criminal process nobody may be forced to incriminate him or herself. […] […] H) OF THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE CRIME. Article 388 of the Code of Criminal Procedures states that in the judgment the Court may give the act a legal classification different to the one in the indictment or the order for trial to commence or impose greater or lower sentences than the one requested by the Office of the Public Prosecutor. In the present case, the analysis of the evidence presented in the debate, especially in what refers to the legal report from the necropsy performed on the minor’s body […], the same one that determines that the cause of death of said minor was due to ASPHYXIA BY STRANGULATION, the Court considers that the criminal act attributable to the defendant fits in the figure contemplated in Article 132 of the Criminal Code, reformed by Decree [Number] 20-96 of the Congress of the Republic, that is the CRIME OF MURDER. Therefore, through a legal overriding the legal classification presented in the indictment and order for trial to commence must be changed from AGGRAVATED RAPE TO THE CRIME OF MURDER.30 Similarly, with regard to the aggravating circumstances of the crime referring to the social dangerousness of the defendant, the mentioned judgment stated that 28 Cfr. Code of Criminal Procedures of Guatemala (Decree Number 51-92) (dossier on statements offered before notary public and evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case). 29 Cfr. Judgment of March 6, 1998 issued by the Criminal, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes Trial Court (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 7, folio 89). 30 Cfr. Judgment of March 6, 1998 issued by the Criminal, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes Trial Court (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 7, folios 91, 95, and 96).