17 proven, may alternatively indicate the circumstances of fact that allow the placement of the defendant’s actions in a different crime.20 54(11) Article 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedures states: Extension of charges, during the debate the Office of the Public Prosecutor may expand the charges, through the inclusion of a new fact or a new circumstance that was not mentioned in the indictment or the order for trial to commence and that may modify the legal classification or the sentence of the same act object of the debate, or constituted the criminal continuation. In such case, with regard to the facts or circumstances attributed in the extension, the President [of the Court] will proceed to receive a new statement from the defendant and will inform the parties that they have the right to request the suspension of the debate in order to offer new evidence or prepare their intervention. Once this right has been exercised, the court will suspend the debate for a term that will be prudently determined, according to the nature of the facts and the needs of the defense. The facts or circumstances to which the expansion refers will be included in the indictment.21 54(12) Article 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedures establishes that: Warning ex officio and suspension of the debate. The President of the Court will warn the parties of the possible modification of the legal classification, and they may exercise the right established in the previous article.22 54(13) After having made said warning (supra para. 54(9)) the President of the Court did not establish ex officio “that it would 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”, pursuant to that established in Article 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedures. Nor did the defense request the suspension of the debate. Therefore, it continued.23 54(14) In its closing arguments of the oral hearing, the Office of the Public Prosecutor concluded that Mr. Fermín Ramírez was responsible of the crime of murder and that the crime was committed with “cruelty” and “brutal impulse” and it requested that the death penalty be imposed.24 In this sense, it stated that: [w]e always held the thesis that the defendant is responsible for the crime of aggravated rape, during the debate as the Court suggested that a different legal classification to the crime for which he was accused […], to make an analysis regarding what occurred in the court room, the thesis presented by the Office of the Public Prosecutor is that Mr. Fermín Ramírez […] is the responsible author of the crime of murder. 20 Cfr. Code of Criminal Procedures of Guatemala (Decree Number 51-92) (dossier on statements offered before notary public and evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case). 21 Cfr. Code of Criminal Procedures of Guatemala (Decree Number 51-92) (dossier on statements offered before notary public and evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case). 22 Cfr. Code of Criminal Procedures of Guatemala (Decree Number 51-92) (dossier on statements offered before notary public and evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case). 23 Cfr. Record of the oral trial moved forward to March 5 and 6, 1998 by the Criminal, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes Trial Court (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 6, folio 68). 24 Cfr. Record of the oral trial moved forward to March 5 and 6, 1998 by the Criminal, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes Trial Court (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 6, folio 84).