30 Therefore,] there is a violation of the mentioned due process and, that is why, that decided by the lower court must be revoked and the legally proceeding ruling must be made.57 54(42) On December 19, 2001 the Constitutional Court confirmed the appealed judgment. In this regard, it considered that […] the Amparo must not become a means of revision of the judicial decisions just because they do not favour the expectations of the one who presents it […].58 54(43) On March 8, 2002 Mr. Fermín Ramírez’s defense counsel presented a new appeal for review before the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice against the criminal judgment executed on March 6, 1998, since the death penalty had been imposed based on the dangerousness of the defendant, without having performed a psychiatric medical exam that determined this circumstance. It added that […] the judge can not conclude [t]he dangerousness from circumstantial evidence and, since that is what he did, there is an unconstitutionality. If the trial court wanted to impose the death penalty [upon Mr. Fermín Ramírez] it should have ordered a psychiatric medical exam, if it was not provided by the prosecutor, in order to determine if he [is] or not dangerous [and, if so,] it also could not impose that sentence [upon him.] […] the [motion of] appeal must be declared admissible directly issuing a definitive sentence imposing the new prison punishment of fifty years deducting the time [Mr. Fermín Ramírez has] been in prison.59 54(44) On April 2, 2002 the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice flatly rejected the appeal for revision. It considered that […] in order to accept an appeal for revision for its proceeding it must comply with the formal and procedural requirements established by law. [In the present case, the defense counsel] did not specify which facts or elements of evidence that appeared after the conviction that along with those already examined in the process, make it evident that the fact or a circumstance that aggravated the sentence did not exist, or that the defendant did not commit it; because it is not enough for the applicant to invoke as documentary evidence the sentences of the first and second courts, as well as those of the Court of Appeals and Amparo without specifying the reasons of the suitability to justify a less serious sentence or an acquittal.60 54(45) On April 25, 2002 the defense counsel presented an appeal of relief against the judgment of April 2, 2002 before the Constitutional Court and requested a provisional Amparo “in virtue of the imminent existence of danger that the death penalty be executed against [Mr. Fermín Ramírez] without being given the possibility 57 Cfr. Motion of appeal presented on July 11, 2001 before the Constitutional Court (dossier of statements offered before a notary public and evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, volume I, folios 924-928). 58 Cfr. Judgment of December 19, 2001 issued by the Constitutional Court (dossier of appendixes to the brief of pleadings and motions, appendix 11, folios 525-527). 59 Cfr. Appeal for review presented on March 8, 2002 before the Criminal Chamber 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 929-939). 60 Cfr. Judgment of April 2, 2002 issued by the Criminal Chamber 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 940-941).