32 reform, of both Decree Number 17-73 and Decree Number 20-96, both of the Congress of the Republic. It stated that […] the circumstances of the act, the occasion, the way it was carried out and the motives [established in the second to last paragraph of Article 132 of the Criminal Code] allow the determination of that dangerousness and the imposition of the death penalty[, which is] precisely what is unconstitutional, because those elements […] are to prove the same, and not to prove the dangerousness and that is why it is derived from known facts to get to know other unknown ones as is the case of that dangerousness obtained from a logical process and not from direct evidence.64 54(49) On December 30, 2003 the Constitutional Court decided to not declare the provisional suspension of the norm appealed. In this regard, it considered that […] in the present case we can not observe the necessary elements established in Article 138 of the Law on Amparo, Personal Exhibition and Constitutionality [notorious unconstitutionality susceptible of causing irreparable damages) to declare the provisional suspension of the second to last paragraph of Article 132 of the Criminal Code (Decree [Number] 17-73) and its reform included in Article 5 of Decree 20-96 both of the Congress of the Republic of Guatemala.65 54(50) On July 20, 2004 the Constitutional Court declared the partial constitutional motion of general nature presented with regard to Article 132 of the Criminal Code of Decree Number 17-73 and Article 5 of Decree Number 20-96, both of the Congress of the Republic of Guatemala inadmissible. It stated that: […] the Constitution offers the possibility to denounce the unconstitutionality of laws in specific cases, with the objective of declaring their non-application, situation that occurs if the basic requirements are fulfilled, consistent in pointing out the law in question with an adequate reasoning that will permit the confrontation of the norms mentioned with the constitutional ones specified by the appellant, which will be examined in order to determine the one that must not be applied. […] the appellant did not carry out the comparative analysis necessary to determine if the ordinary norm appealed is contrary to constitutional dispositions that he states are violated. The appellant limited his exposition to related facts, without producing the confrontation of norms that would put in evidence the errors claimed. Said defect allows us to reach the conclusion that the incidental plea, as presented lacks all foundation and, therefore, is notoriously irrelevant, which leads to its declaration of inadmissible […].66 54(51) On May 6, 2004 the defense counsel of Mr. Fermín Ramírez presented a second appeal for pardon,67 which had not been decided upon when the present judgment was issued. 54(52) On April 11, 2005 the First Lower Criminal, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes Court of Escuintla declared admissible a constitutional appeal of personal exhibition presented by the Attorney for Human Rights in favor of 64 Cfr. Partial unconstitutionality of a law presented on December 22, 2002 before the Constitutional Court (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 22, folios 183-191; and dossier of statements offered before a notary public and evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, volume I, folios 950958). 65 Cfr. Ruling of December 30, 2003 issued by the Constitutional Court (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 24, folios 194 and 195). 66 Cfr. Judgment of July 20, 2004 issued by the Constitutional Court (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 25, folios 196 through 203). 67 Cfr. Appeal for pardon presented on May 6, 2004 before the Ministry of Government (dossier of appendixes to the brief of pleadings and motions, appendix 7, folios 490-511).