44 maintaining public order, especially when dealing with acts like the ones that originated the criminal procedure followed against Mr. Fermín Ramírez, which not only constitute a damage to the individuals but to society as a whole, and they deserve the most energetic rejection, even more so when they involve boys and girls. However, the States’ fight against crime must take place within the limits and pursuant to the procedures that permit the preservation of both public security and a complete respect of the human rights of those submitted to their jurisdiction.86 64. In order to establish if the State violated provisions of the Convention, the Court must determine: a) the nature and content of the so called “principle of coherence or correlation between the indictment and the verdict” in matters of criminal procedures in the light of the judicial guarantees included in Article 8 of the Convention; specifically, the possibility that the criminal judge give the illicit act a legal classification different to the one established in the indictment, or to include facts not included in the latter, all in relation with the defendant’s right to a defense; b) the need to contemplate in the criminal indictment the circumstances that prove the dangerousness of the agent and the relevance, from the perspective of criminal legality, that the legal description of the crime or the determination that its consequences include references to the dangerousness of the agent, which influence the legal determination of the sentence; and c) Mr. Fermín Ramírez’s access to an effective remedy to protect his rights in the criminal process developed against him, pursuant to Article 25 of the Convention. a) Principle of coherence or correlation between the indictment and the verdict. 65. One of the main arguments presented by the Commission and the representative in holding that the State violated Article 8 of the Convention is the non-observance of the mentioned correlation between the indictment and the judgment. The inconsistency occurred when the Trial Court changed the legal classification of the crime and considered as proven new facts and circumstances, that were not considered in the indictment or the order for trial to commence, that is: the cause of death of the minor and the circumstances that in the opinion of the Trial Court proved that Mr. Fermín Ramírez represented a greater danger. 66. The Convention does not endorse any specific criminal procedural system. It gives the States the liberty to determine which one they prefer, as long as they respect the guarantees established in the Convention itself, the internal legislation, other applicable international treaties, the unwritten norms, and the imperative stipulations of international law. 86 Cfr. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al.. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 101; Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 84, para. 174; and Case of Durand and Ugarte. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 69.