29 inadmissible”. Said decision was notified to the defense of June 4, 2001. regard, it considered that In this […] the incidental plea was processed and decided upon pursuant to the due process and the right to defense of the petitioner, in which he had the opportunity to exercise his constitutional rights, providing the evidence in the hearing that was set for this effect, which was not done […] […] to intend to get the acts of the judicial bodies that intervened restudied and to obtain a decision from the Amparo court with regard to the motives presented before said bodies, is a revision of the merit and this decision, pursuant to Article 203 of the Constitution, corresponds to the courts, given their function of judging and promoting the execution of that decided, reason for which it would constitute a third instance prohibited by law, due to the subsidiary and extraordinary nature of the Amparo, since it is not a way to revise that decided or to decide matters of fact contested in a legal process that was solved pursuant to the procedural norms that govern it, guaranteeing the rights established in the Constitution and the law.54 54(39) On June 4, 2001, date on which Mr. Fermín Ramírez’s defense counsel was notified of the judgment of May 18, 2001, it presented before the Chamber of Amparo and Pretrial of the Supreme Court of Justice an appeal of extension against said judgment, for having “omitted to decide on some of the matters included in the Amparo,” in this case, for not referring to the request for the ordering of discovery of the incidental plea regarding the execution of the sentence, or the alleged violation of Mr. Fermín Ramírez’s right to know of the change of the Prosecutor in charge of his case.55 54(40) On June 21, 2001, the Chamber of Amparo and Pretrial of the Supreme Court of Justice declared the appeal for expansion presented on June 4, 2001 inadmissible. In this regard, it considered that [in] the judgment issued there is no matter to be expanded on, since even though the substantive reasons of why that decided by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeals were not explained in the detail requested, that was because it was the logical and necessary consequence of the fact that, as stated in the judgment, the Amparo wanted to be turned into a third instance of review, and in order to avoid this is precisely why the Amparo presented was resolved as it was, stating that due to its subsidiary and extraordinary nature it could not substitute the ordinary judicial function, which was reason enough to declare it inadmissible.56 54(41) On July 11, 2001 the defense counsel presented a motion of appeal against the Amparo judgment of May 18, 2001 before the Constitutional Court. It stated that […] the Chamber of Amparo and Pretrial violated [the] right [of Mr. Fermín Ramírez] to have a due process regulated in Article 12 of the Constitution, since by denying [him] the Amparo it supported the decisions of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeals and the ruling issued by the Second Trial Court, because all three of them applied a law that does not regulate the specific case, but instead it is a general provision[. 54 Cfr. Judgment of May 18, 2001 issued by the Chamber of Amparo and Pretrial of the Supreme Court of Justice (dossier of statements offered before a notary public and evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, volume I, folios 917-923); and appeal for extension presented on June 4, 2001 before the Chamber of Amparo and Pretrial of the Supreme Court of Justice (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 17, folio 161). 55 Cfr. Appeal of extension presented on June 4, 2001 before the Chamber of Amparo and Pretrial of the Supreme Court of Justice (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 17, folios 161 - 163). 56 Cfr. Judgment of June 21, 2001 issued by the Chamber of Amapro and Pretrial of the Supreme Court of Justice (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 18, folios 164 and 165).