31 to exhaust all the remedies necessary to defend [himself].” judgment of April 2, 2002, the defense counsel stated that With regard to the […] the Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Chamber, violated Article 18 of the Political constitution of the Republic, because it was obliged to process the appeal for review, and if any requirement was missing it had to give the corresponding term for its correction, but never reject it because it goes against its obligations. It also violated Article 14 subparagraph (5) of the International Pact of Civil and Political Rights, because it restrict[ed Mr. Fermín Ramírez’s] right to submit the conviction and the sentence imposed to a Higher Court. In this same way Article 8 subparagraph 2 point h of the American Convention on Human Rights is violated, because [they] restrict [his] right to appeal the sentence before a higher court. Article 398 of the Code of Criminal Procedures was also violated because it limits [his] ability to appeal his conviction of the death penalty, which was arbitrarily imposed [upon him]; and Defense 4 of the Defenses for the guarantee of the protection of the rights of those convicted to the death penalty since if there was a psychiatric medical report it would state that […] he [is] not socially dangerous and therefore, the imposition of the death penalty did not correspond; but since it was done like this, it was imposed arbitrarily. Therefore, the Amparo action must be granted reestablishing [his] right to appeal and for the same reason the Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Chamber must proceed with the Appeal for Review presented.61 54(46) On December 30, 2002 the Constitutional Court, acting as an extraordinary court of Amparo, granted Mr. Fermín Ramírez an Amparo and ordered the Supreme Court of Justice to issue a new decision regarding the admissibility of the appeal for review. In this regard, it considered that: Having analyzed the background of the Amparo we have determined that the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, by rejecting the appeal for review presented by the party protected by the Amparo, prohibited [him] his constitutional right to access all means of appeal established by law, since we can appreciate that the content of said ruling, more than a declaration on the admissibility of the review, is a decision regarding the merit of the matter, however said decision must be made by the mentioned judicial body after having exhausted the procedure that, pursuant to the code of criminal procedures, must be given to the appeal for revision –Articles 458 and 459 of the Code of Criminal Procedures.62 54(47) On November 25, 2003 the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued a judgment and declared the appeal for revision presented by the defense counsel against the judgment of March 6, 1998 inadmissible. It considered that: […] the appellant did not express why he consider[ed] that the judgments presented are evidentiary elements that occurred after the judgment […] Despite [that] deficiency, [t]he Chamber analyze[d] the evidentiary elements presented, determining that the judgments received as evidence […] do not comply with the requirement of Article 455 subparagraph (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedures, since they are not facts or evidentiary elements that occurred after the conviction […].63 54(48) On December 22, 2003 the defense counsel of Mr. Fermín Ramírez presented before the Constitutional Court a “partial constitutional motion of general nature” against the second to last paragraph of Article 132 of the Criminal Code and its 61 Cfr. Appeal of relief in a single instance presented on April 25, 2002 before the Constitutional Court (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 19, folios 166-175). 62 Cfr. Judgment of December 30, 2002 issued by the Constitutional Court (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 20, folio 179). 63 Cfr. Judgment of November 25, 2003 issued by the Criminal Chamber 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 943-945).