26 subparagraph (e) of the Political Constitution of Guatemala and based on Articles 141 and 203 of the mentioned Constitution; in Article 4 subparagraph (6) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and Article 6 subparagraph (4) of the International Pact on Civil and Political Rights, denied the measure of grace presented by Mr. Fermín Ramírez’s defense counsel.46 54(31) On June 9, 2000 Mr. Fermín Ramírez’s defense counsel presented an Amparo before the Constitutional Court against the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, the Twelfth Chamber of the Appeals Court of Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes, and the Criminal, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes Trial Court of Escuintla, for the violation of the guarantees of the due process and the right to a defense. Likewise, it requested provisional Amparo before the “imminent danger that the death sentence be executed in […] against [Mr. Fermín Ramírez] as a consequence of the violation of the due process, the principle of defense and providing evidence.” In this sense, it stated that: […] there was not a legal process because [Mr. Fermín Ramírez] is accused of Aggravated Rape, the lower court open[ed] a trial for this same crime, the debate was open[ed] and [they] told him that [it] would be carried out […] for the crime of Murder without having made an alternative indictment or having expanded the indictment, [or] hearing what he had to say over this other infraction to the law […]. [It is not possible for] the court, based [on] Article [388 of the Code of Criminal Procedures] to change a prison sentence for a death sentence without informing the defendant that he will be charged for the crime of Murder which can imply a prison sentence or the death penalty. […] if the indictment is not expanded during the debate for the crime of Murder, the defendant’s statement regarding this crime is not received, nor is he given the right to request the suspension of the debate in order to offer new evidence or prepare his intervention due to this change in the crime because in accordance with Article 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedures the president of the court should have warned the defendant about the possible modification of the legal classification pursuant to Article 374 of said code, therefore it is obvious that the due process was violated or there was no legal process in complete violation of Article 12 of the Political Constitution of the Republic; and the accused was left defenseless since he was not given the opportunity to prove that he had not committed that crime, nor was he given the opportunity to offer evidence for the defense in order to disprove [the] facts[, which] proves that the error was made from the lower court, the higher court, and the criminal chamber, since they should have detected that mistake ex officio in accordance with the principle of effective judicial protection. […] […] the Court […] did not justify why it fit into Murder[, thus violating Article 11 bis of the Code of Criminal Procedures]. [the Court] did not explain [or justify] in what the malice[, premeditation and cruelty] consisted. [Regarding the impulse of brutal perversity,] if [the Court] says it was necrophilia it is not possible to commit [the previous] aggravating circumstances to a corpse. [Therefore,] the violation to Article 11 bis of the mentioned code continues. […] by not justifying [the] aggravating circumstances [included in Article 27 of the Criminal Code, such as the abuse of superiority, a deserted area, contempt for the victim, use of tricks to commit the crime] it did not comply with that regulated by Article 11 bis in question, and [by] declaring the social dangerousness of the defendant based [on] such aggravating circumstances, it violated Article 87 of the Criminal Code, since in order to declare the dangerousness mentioned in Artilce 132 of the Criminal Code, there 46 Cfr. Governmental Agreement Number 235-2000 issued on May 31, 2000 by the President of the Republic of Guatemala and published on June 2, 2000 in the Diario de Centro América (dossier of appendixes to the brief of pleadings and motions, appendix 12, folio 530).