41 r) the existence of a legal framework that ensures the right to appeal and revise a judgment is not enough to comply with the due process of law and guarantee the defendant’s right to appeal the conviction; s) the courts that took up the motions of appeal and other appeals did not repair the violation to the right to life and the other minimum legal guarantees; t) the lack of precision of the term “dangerousness” makes the right to a review of the conviction “false”, since due to the ambiguity of said term it is impossible to go over the factual and legal elements that lead to the imposition of the death penalty; u) there was a lack of effective judicial protection from the higher bodies that took up the case; and v) the internal legislation regulates remedies that do not reunite the requirements necessary to ensure the revision of the judgment in a complete manner. The special motion of appeal has become a formalistic and technical remedy, which does not allow the defendants to access an integrated revision of the verdict. The appeal for dismissal is a remedy limited to matters of law. The Amparo in criminal matters does not refer to the facts considered proven by the court or regarding the evidence and assessment of the evidence made by the trial court. 57. Arguments of the State: Regarding the violation of Article 8 of the American Convention a) in the development of the debate of March 5, 1997 the trial court warned the parties, based on Article 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedures, that at the opportune time a legal classification different to the one included in the indictment and the order for trial to commence could be given; b) Article 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedures establishes the right of the parties to request the suspension of the debate, in order to offer new evidence or prepare their intervention. When the trial court warned the parties of the possible change of the legal classification of the act, it guaranteed the defendant’s right to a defense; however, it was not exercised at the correct procedural moment; c) there was no violation to Article 8 of the Convention, since at the beginning of the debate the entire indictment and order for trial to commence were read; d) if Mr. Fermín Ramírez was not heard regarding other facts, it was due to the fact that the defense counsel did not exercise the procedural right to request the suspension of the debate; e) new facts or evidentiary means were not included. The warning made by the Court was not due to their incorporation, instead it was made after the expert witness stated that the cause of death of the minor had been asphyxia by strangulation;