40 j) the Office of the Public Prosecutor did not request an extension of the indictment in the terms of Articles 373 and 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedures, regarding the aggravating circumstance of dangerousness, so that the court could have that circumstance as proven in the judgment; k) no legal decision can be based on the private convincing of the judge or in judgments that the defense has not had the chance to contradict, as occurred in the present case: the conviction of Mr. Fermín Ramírez does not include any objective data legally introduced into the process that can be considered suitable to produce a true or probable knowledge regarding the criminal dangerousness of the convicted party; l) the State’s judicial bodies acted in a discriminatory manner. In other cases judgments have been annulled due to lack of an accusation and summons of criminal dangerousness in the indictment. Likewise, the Court of Appeals has annulled, in a similar case, the imposition of the death penalty because there was not a prior and detailed communication regarding the aggravating circumstance of dangerousness; Regarding the violation to Article 8(2)(c) of the Convention m) the prior and detailed knowledge of the indictment against Mr. Fermín Ramírez, regarding the possible legal classification of murder and the aggravating circumstance of dangerousness, would have allowed the defense counsel to request the suspension of the debate and the preparation of evidence for the defense; n) the fact that Mr. Fermín Ramírez was never warned that the crime for which he was being tried implied the possibility of imposing the death penalty, made the defense counsel consider that it was unnecessary to request the suspension of the debate and offer specific evidence regarding the determination of the sentence; Regarding the violation of Article 8(2)(f) of the American Convention o) the Courts of Justice violated the right to the presumption of innocence, since they considered the defendant’s dangerousness proven without the existence of specific evidence of it, based simply on the “subjective and irrational” appreciation of the Trial Court; p) according to the principle of presumption: 1) the guilt of the defendant must be established beyond reasonable doubt; 2) the defendant must enjoy the benefit of doubt; and 3) the burden of evidence lies on the prosecution, who must destroy the presumption that exists in favour of the defendant; Regarding the violations of Articles 25 and 8(2)(h) of the American Convention q) the right to appeal the judgment before the judge or higher courts is an essential element of the due process and has a non-revocable nature;