23 present arguments and use means of appeal, that is, the constitutional right to a due process was completely attended to.38 54(23) On September 30, 1998 Mr. Fermín Ramírez’s defense counsel presented before the Constitutional Court an appeal of relief against the decision of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of August 17, 1998. In said appeal it requested a provisional Amparo and stated, inter alia, the violations to the right to life, to a defense, to a due process, and to the presumption of innocence. In this sense, the defense counsel stated that: [the fact that the appeal for review by a higher court presented for reasons of merit was declared inadmissible violates Mr. Fermín Ramírez’s constitutional rights [set forth in Articles 6, 12, 14, and 18(a) of the Constitution because:] […] the court […] issued [against Mr. Fermín Ramírez] a conviction and imposed [upon him] the death penalty, which is not legally permitted, since it was based on presumptions and, by being carried out this way, the internal legislation was violated, specifically Article 18 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala, as well as international treaties and the right to life that every person has. The Criminal Trial Court, when issuing its verdict, issued a conviction, despite the fact that nobody at any time pointed [him] out as the responsible party […] […] the convicting court when issuing the corresponding verdict in the judgment dated March sixth nineteen ninety eight, does not at any time consider as proven the fact that [Mr. Fermín Ramírez] had participated in the illicit act of murder he has been charged with. […] the court gave evidentiary value to illegitimate evidence, since it was obtained, first of all illegally, and on the other hand they were obtained without the presence of a defense counsel[. Similarly,] it is evident that the arrest of [Mr. Fermín Ramírez] was completely illegal. [T]he convicting court issued a death sentence based on presumptions, misapplying the rules of a reasoned and competent analysis not following the principle of in dubio pro reo or favor rei, since without the existence of evidence to induce the court in veracity when applying the rules of competent analysis it should have declared that there was no certainty and therefore acquit [Mr. Fermín Ramírez] of the crime he was accused of.39 54.24 On February 18, 1999 the Constitutional Court in its quality of Extraordinary Court of Amparo, denied the Amparo requested on September 30, 1998, in the following terms: 1. After the occurrence of the violent death of the minor, whom neighbors of the place of the act saw was riding on the bicycle being driven by the applicant toward the river, and moments later they discovered her body covered with mud in shallow waters, with blood stains, he was detained by some of them who noticed he was coming back wet, without a shirt on, and with mud stains, in order to turn him over to the police authorities thus avoiding that the other settlers carry out their intention to burn him alive. The Code of Criminal Procedures (Article 257) authorizes an arrest executed in this manner, reason for which your affirmation of having been illegally arrested lacks foundation, and therefore there is no violation to Article 6 of the Constitution. 2. A writ of indictment was issued against the applicant for the crimes of murder and aggravated rape; the Office of the Public Prosecutor accused him of the latter and a 38 Cfr. Judgment of August 17, 1998 issued by the Supreme Court of Justice (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 9, folios 113 and 114). 39 Cfr. Appeal of relief presented on September 30, 1998 before the Constitutional Court (dossier of statements offered before a notary public and evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, volume I, folios 864 and 866-868).