37 and that was definitive in the imposition of the sentence, that is: the greater and specific dangerousness of Mr. Fermín Ramírez. The Trial Court considered this circumstance as established without any evidentiary foundation or reasoning. Based on a relationship of the same circumstances used as aggravating circumstances of the crime, it concluded that Fermín Ramírez presented a greater dangerousness; i) Article 132 of the Code of Criminal Procedures considers a subjective element that implies the possibility that a person can commit similar acts in the future. The determination of this circumstance requires a scientific evaluation, through adequate means of proof. Criminal dangerousness, as well as any other aggravating or extenuating circumstance, generic or specific, may not be presumed; instead it must be proven during the trial. By omitting all reference to the defendant’s dangerousness in the indictment, the authorities impaired Mr. Fermín Ramírez’s defense counsel from presenting evidence for the defense, thus violating the principle of rebuttal. The Office of the Public Prosecutor must have included in the indictment all the elements of the crime; j) the judicial authorities ignored the principle of consistency or correlation between the indictment and the verdict, and therefore incurred in a violation of the right to a defense, which Mr. Fermín Ramírez could not exercise correctly; k) the Trial Court issued a conviction without the existence of an act in which the fact attributed to the defendant was determined with absolute clarity, despite that established in Article 332 Bis of the Code of Criminal Procedures, that includes as a substantive requirement of the indictment a clear, precise, and circumstantiated relationship of the illicit act with which the defendant is being charged and its legal classification; and of that stated in Article 388 of the same Code that restricts the verdict to the facts included in the indictment, which did not happen in this case; l) the criminal legislation contemplates mechanisms designed to guarantee the right to a defense of the accused when from the evidence produced or from the oral debate new facts or circumstances that were not mentioned in the indictment are derived, in order to avoid “surprising” the defendant; m) a formal expansion of the indictment, based on Article 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedures, including a detailed description of the new facts and circumstances based on which the change of classification and the death penalty were requested was omitted; the president of the Trial Court abstained from receiving a new statement from Mr. Fermín Ramírez regarding the facts that he established as proven in the verdict, and did not expressly warn the parties of their right to request the suspension of the debate, in order to have the necessary time and means to prepare their defense; n) based on the evidence found in the dossier, the Commission concludes that the judicial authorities abstained from informing Mr. Fermín Ramírez, previously and in detail, of the facts and circumstances on which the conviction was based, thus violating Article 8(2)(b) of the American Convention. As a consequence of the above, the Commission concludes that