6 due process. In several occasions notorious transgressions that involve the mistreatment of the defendant in order to obtain a confession, an irregular and prejudged investigations, acts of courts that lack independence or impartiality, complete deprivation of the right to a defense, obstruction of justice, elimination of the access to evidence, absence of ideal means of appeal, and other violations of the same nature have been brought to the consideration of the Court. This case is about a violation of another type: inconsistency between the indictment and the punishment, which implies –despite it does not offer a dramatic appearance or immediately offends social consciousness—a restriction to the right to a defense, which is the most valued right for the person who is subject to trial and it has an effect on the final decision of the court that convicts. Any person who supposes the possibility of being taken to a criminal trial --and who is absolutely free of this possibility? --, knows that the law acknowledges the right to a defense and trusts that he will have access to it. 23. It is probable that whoever observes this matter may consider that it is a mere procedural technicality. The separation between the so-called “technicalities” and serious violations is a matter frequently analyzed by the writers of the procedure and it is not foreign to debate in different circles of opinion. Now, it is important to mention that behind the so-called “technicalities”, which some observers minimize and even attribute adverse results for security and justice, we find real human rights that must be respected. Finally, the moral and political strength of the democratic society is also measured through its capacity to attend to the specific rights of individuals and at the same time serve the objectives of security and justice demanded by society and that are the reason of existence of the legal system. C) Principle of consistency between the indictment and the judgment 24. In the Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala, the Inter-American Court examined some matters of the due process that it had not known of previously. Today it has not focused, as in so many other cases, on the natural judge, the independence and impartiality of the judge, the possibility to appoint defense counsel and receive its assistance, the structure of the evidence, the appeal against convictions, the reliability of the confession and others that have consistently been in its view. In this case, information of the criminal process in a democratic society has been put into game: the consistency between the indictment and the judgment, which not only involves a logical connection between two procedural acts of extreme importance, but it also involves the defendant’s right to a defense –because it affects it deeply--, and therefore it is projected over the totality of the process and falls upon the validity of the judgment itself. 25. Even more so, the consistency I am referring to –which avoids legal decisions on the margin of the indictment made by a body different to and with independence from the judge—constitutes a regular expression of the division of powers and characterizes the accusatory criminal procedural system. In effect, it puts in evidence the separation between the accusing body and the body that issues the judgment, and acknowledges the persecutory function of the first and not the latter. If this was not so, that is, if the judge could exceed the terms of the indictment, ignore them, or substitute them at his discretion, we would be in the presence of an inquisitive judicial performance: the judicial body would itself include facts and charges in the sentence that have not been presented by the prosecution, and it would become, in great measure, an accusing agent.