46 70. In the present case, the imposition of the death penalty by the Criminal, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes Trial Court was based on the application of Article 132 of the Criminal Code of Guatemala, which classifies and punishes murder. The sentence was issued after an oral and public debate, following the indictment made against Mr. Fermín Ramírez for the crime of aggravated rape, stipulated in Article 175 of the Criminal Code and punished with imprisonment of up to 50 years. This accusation was the basis for the start of the oral and public trial before the Criminal, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes Trial Court. During the first day of the debate, the Court warned the parties of the possibility to change the legal classification of the crime, but it did not specify toward what crime the change could be oriented, which is not in any way irrelevant for the exercise of the defense and the judicial decision regarding the applicable punishment. In the judgment of March 6, 1998, the Criminal Trial Court, invoking Article 388 of the Code of Criminal Procedures, decided that “from the analysis of the evidence produced in the debate […] the Court considers that the illicit act charged on the defendant falls into the figure contemplated in Article 132 of the Criminal Code, [… r]eason for which, by rule of law the legal classification presented in the indictment and the order for trial to commence must be changed from aggravated rape to the crime of murder.” Therefore, it convicted Mr. Fermín Ramírez to the death penalty (supra paras. 54(5) through 54(18)). 71. When evacuating evidence during the oral trial it is possible to prove the existence of new facts or circumstances not included in the indictment. In said hypothesis, the Office of the Public Prosecutor may present an “Alternative indictment” or the “Extension of the indictment”, previously mentioned (supra para. 54(10) and 54(11)), in order to seek the modification of the object of the process. 72. In the case to which this judgment refers certain mistakes and omissions occurred. After the indictment made by the Office of the Public Prosecutor classified the defendant’s act as an aggravated rape, the accusing body ordered the court to change this legal classification and convict the defendant to the death penalty, but it did not exercise the power to present an “Alternative indictment” or an “Extension of the indictment”, pursuant to Articles 333 and 373 of the Guatemalan Code of Criminal Procedures, respectively (supra paras. 54(10), 54(11) and 71), instead it limited its action to requesting, in its closing arguments, at the end of the debate, that the defendant be convicted for the crime of murder and that the death penalty be imposed upon him. On its part, the president of the Trial Court did not rule that it wanted to “receive a new statement” from Mr. Fermín Ramírez, nor did it inform the parties that they had the “right to request the suspension of the debate to offer new evidence or to prepare their intervention,” which must have been done ex officio pursuant to the terms of Articles 373 and 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedures (supra paras. 54(11) and 54(12)). In any case, the criminal court must have carried out the process in accordance with the guarantees established in the internal legislation and the Convention. 73. The Trial Court based its actions on Article 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedures, which establishes a “warning ex officio” regarding a “possible modification of the legal classification.” However, the president of the Court limited his actions to warning the parties that “at the right moment” a legal classification different to the one included in the indictment and in the order for trial to commence could be given, but it did not specify which would be the new legal classification, and much less did it refer to the possibility that the change in the classification could actually originate from a modification in the factual basis of the process and, when