39 c) the right to be heard makes no sense if the verdict can exceed the fact and circumstances included in the indictment; Regarding the criminal process followed against Mr. Fermín Ramírez d) in the terms of Article 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedures, if the trial court warns ex officio that it may vary the legal classification of the acts charged, it must inform the defendant of this possibility and receive a new statement from him on the new facts, so that he may request the suspension of the debate and exercise the right to present new evidence or legal arguments; Regarding the violation of Article 8(2) of the Convention e) the victim of the crime was 12 years old at the moment of the act, reason for which the death penalty could not be applied, but instead it should have been punished with 30 to 50 years in prison. The indictment made by the Office of the Public Prosecutor did not contemplate the death penalty; f) in order to protect the right to a defense and the prior and detailed communication of the indictment, Article 333 of the Code of Criminal Procedures guarantees the possibility of presenting an alternative indictment, in which case the Office of the Public Prosecutor may seek the application of a different legal norm, since it considers there are concurring circumstances. This avoids surprising alterations of the factual framework or of the legal classification of the acts and guarantees the defendant’s right to a defense; g) in the Guatemalan procedural law the right to a summons is of great importance. A hearing is set to discuss the indictment and exercise a control of all its factual and legal matters. In said hearing the defendant can exercise his right to a defense; h) when preparing the indictment, the Office of the Public Prosecutor only mentioned the sentence of 30 to 50 years in prison. When it presented it final arguments, it mentioned the possibility of requesting the death penalty. The change of legal classification was made in the conviction, without previously informing Mr. Fermín Ramírez. That change varied the nature of the indictment in the trial, since the Court changed the facts that it later considered as proven in the judgment; i) the aggravating circumstance of dangerousness has not been expressly defined within Guatemalan jurisprudence. Some courts mention social dangerousness and other criminal dangerousness. The doctrine mentions that social dangerousness cannot be invoked in a democratic state, since it corresponds to a criminal system based on the situation of the perpetrator. Criminal dangerousness implies the opinion of the court regarding the possibility that the defendant will commit new crimes in the future, when it is immune from prosecution and the need to apply a security measure is discussed. Therefore, criminal dangerousness may not be presumed, but instead it must be proven;