22 and 388 of the Code of Criminal Procedures and of Articles 65 of the Criminal Code. In this sense, the defense counsel stated that: [Article 430 of the Code of Criminal Procedures was erroneously interpreted because] the first appeals Court gave merit to the evidence provided in the debate […] and therefore also gave merit to the facts proven […] without having the power to do so. [Article 373 of the mentioned legal document was erroneously interpreted because] even though it is true that there wasn’t an expansion of the indictment this is a violation of the procedure that had an adverse effect on the defendant [due to] the inclusion of new facts within the process […] and therefore the right the defendant or his counsel had to request a suspension was omitted. Also, if the possibilities of a variation in the legal classification tended to a more serious crime, the warning included in Article 374 of the same legal document must have been made. [Article 388 of the Code of Criminal Procedures was erroneously interpreted because] the Appeals court considered the article correctly applied […] with regard to the power of the Criminal trial Court […] to give the act a different legal classification of that included in the indictment or in the order for trial to commence o to impose sentences greater or lesser than the one requested by the Office of the Public Prosecutor without taking into account that the facts on which there sentence was based were not the same that originated the process […]; therefore the lower degree Court was not empowered to modify the legal classification of the facts because the requirements that guarantee the inviolability of the defense through Article 12 of the Political Constitution of the Republic had not been complied with. [Article 65 of the Criminal Code was erroneously interpreted because] the Court of Appeals […] omit[ted] […] to point out that at no time the trial court gave merit to his personal background or that of the victim [nor] of the greater or lesser dangerousness of the defendant, circumstance that must be a precedent and not a consequence of the sentence, likewise it omitted from its reasoning the elements and circumstances of the fact on which it was based by simply applying the aggravating circumstances included in the lower court sentence, since it only limited its action to their numeric description.37 54(22) On August 17, 1998, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice considered that the Appeal for Review by a Higher Court presented by the defense counsel of Mr. Fermín Ramírez had been erroneously presented since they only indicated that it was being presented due to reasons of merit but it did not indicate, as per the applicable law, which was the case of legality it invoked. However, since it was a case that involved the death penalty it revised the judgment ex officio, in order to establish, inter alia, if the constitutional and legal guarantees were observed during the process. Said Criminal Chamber declared the Appeal inadmissible and mentioned that: […] the legal norms stated as violated must be of a substantive nature and not a procedural one. In the case in question […] the appellant claims there was a violation of […] norms of an eminent adjective nature, an argumentative defect that makes it impossible to examine the appeal. […] the appellant limited itself to expressing its non-conformity with that decided in this regard; but it did not formulate a position that would act as the foundation for its claim, which makes the examination of the case impossible. […] that none of the procedural motives or motives of merit for annulment regulated in the Code of Criminal Procedures is present. […] that the process was substantiated pursuant to the right to a fair trial satisfying the defendant’s right to a defense, not finding any circumstance to justify its annulment, since the courts that have taken up the case have observed all the norms regarding the procedure of the trial, without violating the defendant’s right to take action before the competent, predetermined judges, to defend himself, to offer and present evidence, to 37 Cfr. Appeal for annulment without formalities presented before the Twelfth chamber of Appeals and appeal for annulment due to merit of July 7, 1998 (dossier of statements offered before a notary public and evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, volume I, folios 847-858).