21 and erroneous application of the law, especially Article 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedures.35 54(20) On May 27, 1998, the Twelfth Chamber of the Appeals Court of Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes declared the special motion of appeal inadmissible based on the following considerations: […] for reasons of Merit[:] in no way was the presumption of innocence of Mr. [Fermín Ramírez] violated; since the due process was respected; nor was the right to a fair trial to which the defendants are entitled pursuant to the American Convention on Human Rights and, besides, all the elements necessary to classify the crime as Murder according to that established in Article 132 of the Criminal Code are present, since all the facts attributed to the process were the consequence of a normally suitable action for their production, according to the nature of the crime and the circumstances under which it was committed, concluding from this that he was arrested moments after the act is said to have been committed; that accepted by him in his preliminary examination statement and from the statements of the witnesses […] and the report offered by the [expert witness] of the Chemical Biological Criminal Lab of the Office of identification of the National Police and the Forensic Medical report of the necropsy practiced on the body of the dead minor; details that served as grounds for the Trial Court to achieve legal certainty that Fermín Ramírez only surname was the author of the violent death of GRINDI YASMIN FRANCO TORRES, criterion shared by this Chamber and, therefore, it must declare the Special Motion of Appeal due to reasons of Merit inadmissible. With regard to the procedural motives[:] Article 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedures was not unobserved nor erroneously applied by the Trial Court, since at no time was the indictment expanded through the inclusion of a new fact or a new circumstance that was not mentioned in the indictment or in the order for trial to commence, on the contrary, they correctly applied Article 388 of the same Code, quoted in its second paragraph, where the law enables the Trial Court to give the act a different legal classification to that of the indictment or the order for trial to commence or to impose sentences greater or below the ones requested by the Office of the Public Prosecutor. In what refers to the violation of Articles 211, 219, 281, and 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedures, invoked by the defense counsel […] when analyzed, despite having been stated as violated in the initial writ of the presentation of the Special Motion of Appeal and not having been invoked as a Procedural Reason, this Chamber does not consider they were not observed. Regarding Articles 65 and 66 of the Criminal Code, these were not violated either, since the Trial Court justified their motive for imposing the death penalty on the defendant. On the other hand, this Chamber considers that no notorious injustice was committed against the defendant FERMIN RAMIREZ only surname or FERMIN RAMIREZ ORDOÑEZ that violated his constitutional rights granted by law to every person, but instead they were respected; and the death penalty imposed on the defendant was based on the conclusive evidence produced in the debate and assessed by the Trial Court pursuant [to] the Rules of Competent Analysis. Therefore, the Special Motion of Appeal based on Procedural Motives must also be declared inadmissible.36 54(21) On June 6, 1998 the defense counsel of Mr. Fermín Ramírez presented before the Twelfth Court of Appeals an appeal for review by a higher court without formalities. On June 7, 1998, the defense counsel of Mr. Fermín Ramírez presented before the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice an appeal for review by a higher court due to merit against the judgment of May 27, 1998 issued by the Twelfth Chamber of the Appeals Court of Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes, and claimed an erroneous interpretation of Articles 430, 373, 35 Cfr. Judgment of first appeal of May 27, 1998 issued by the Twelfth Chamber of the Appeals Court of Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes of Guatemala (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 8, folio 103). 36 Cfr. Judgment of first appeal of May 27, 1998 issued by the Twelfth Chamber of the Appeals Court of Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes of Guatemala (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 8, folios 103-106).