28 present evidence, the undersigning is of the opinion that such a request is completely out of order since [this]* would imply a variation of the forms of the process.50 54(35) On January 2, 2001 the defense counsel presented a special motion of appeal against the decision of December 22, 2000, for procedural reasons, before the Second Court of Criminal Execution and requested that they proceed “to transfer and forward the […] motion to the Jurisdictional Court”, and in it they stated that [Article 16 of the Law of the Judicial Body was not observed, since] the Court did not order discovery in the process with the evidence offered, since it should not have set a hearing to decide on the incidental plea but instead to proceed with regard to the evidence proposed and, subsequently, if it was its opinion, set the hearing to discuss the incidental plea in a oral and public hearing […] [Article 12 of the Constitution was not observed, since Mr. Fermín Ramírez was left] totally defenseless [and he was not given] enough opportunity to defend [himself] in order to prove that there [were] still matters to be resolved, and on which the fulfillment of the sentence imposed will depend, and by declaring inadmissible the appeal and violating constitutional rights, the right to a defense was violated […].51 54(36) On January 31, 2001 the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeals declared the motion unappealable and confirmed the judgment of December 22, 2000, stating that […] it did not find any violation of the norms mentioned as violated, since Article 139 of the Law of the Judicial Body […] does not include the ordering of discovery, but instead only the receipt of evidence, when the incidental plea refers to merit matters, in no more than two hearings […]; and, in this specific case, the Judge set a hearing for the reception of evidence, without it being provided by the one who proposed it, reason for which he proceeded to decide on the incidental plea.52 54(37) On February 13, 2001 the defense counsel presented an appeal of relief before the Chamber of Amparo and Pretrial of the Supreme Court of Justice against the decision of January 31, 2001. It stated that [said decision] was not issued pursuant [to the] legal process [and they were] applying, as did the court, a law different to the one that corresponds to the case [of Mr. Fermín Ramírez.] [the] right [of Mr. Fermín Ramírez] to know who the Prosecuting Attorney that would follow [his] case and to be able to establish a compatibility was violated […] […] the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeals […] violate[d] the due process [of Mr. Fermín Ramírez] and [his] right to a defense.53 54(38) On May 18, 2001 the Chamber of Amparo and Pretrial of the Supreme Court of Justice declared the appeal of relief presented on February 13, 2001 “notoriously 50 Cfr. Judgment of December 22, 2000 issued by the Second Court of Criminal Execution (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 16, folios 155-157). 51 Cfr. Motion of appeal presented on January 2, 2001 before the Second Court of Criminal Execution (dossier of statements offered before a notary public and evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, volume I, folios 894-901). 52 Cfr. Ruling of January 31, 2001 issued by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeals (dossier of statements offered before a notary public and evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, volume I, folios 902-906). 53 Cfr. Appeal of relief presented on February 13, 2001 before 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 907-916).