48 defence to the new charge, as it was only through the Court of Appeal’s judgment that they learnt of the recharacterisation of the facts. Plainly, that was too late.88 78. The respect to the set of guarantees that inform of the due process and provide the limits to the regulation of the state’s criminal power in a democratic society is especially impassable and rigorous when dealing with the imposition of the death penalty. 79. In the present case, by disregarding the guarantees of the due process, especially the right to a defense, the State violated the procedural rules of strict and necessary observance in cases of imposition of the death penalty. Therefore, the conviction of Mr. Fermín Ramírez to capital punishment was arbitrary for having violated the impassable limitations for the imposition of said punishments in the countries that still have it.89 80. Based on all the above, the Court considers that the procedural offenses in which the judicial authorities incurred violated Article 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same. b) Need to contemplate in the criminal indictment the circumstances that prove the agent’s dangerousness. 81. The Commission argued that the State incurred in a violation of the right to a defense when the Trial Court, in its judgment of March 6, 1998, did not express any grounds regarding the dangerousness of the agent, but instead it concluded, based on a relationship between the same circumstances used as aggravating causes of the crime, that Mr. Fermín Ramírez represented a greater dangerousness. From a procedural point of view, it is serious that the indictment did not refer to the circumstances that would prove the dangerousness of Mr. Fermín Ramírez. The Court considers that this matter must be analyzed based on the compatibility of Article 132 of the Criminal Code with Article 9 of the Convention (infra paras. 87 through 98). c) Access to an effective remedy (Article 25 of the Convention) 82. The Commission and the representatives argued that the State violated Article 25 of the Convention. In this regard, the Court observed that the ruling on the merits of the case issued by the Criminal Trial Court was appealed through several regular and extraordinary remedies existing in Guatemala. The decisions issued with regard to these remedies coincided in stating that the actions of the Trial Court were pursuant to the criminal, criminal procedural, constitutional, and international norms applicable to the case (supra para. 54 points 20, 22, 24, 27, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 47, and 50). 88 Cfr. Pelissier and Sassi v France, supra note 87, para. 62. See also, mutatis mutandis, Mattoccia v Italy 23969/94 [2000] ECHR, paras. 60-81; Sipavicius v. Lithuania, 49093/99 [2002] ECHR, paras. 2530; Dallos v Hungary 29082/95 [2001] ECHR, paras. 47-53; T v. Austria 27783/95 [2000] ECHR, paras. 70-72; and Kyprianou v Cyprus 73797/01 [2004] ECHR, paras. 65-68. 89 Cfr. Restrictions to the death penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-3/83 of September 8, 1983. Series A No. 3, para. 55.