6 10. The Inter-American Court in its Judgment of 2004, made rulings regarding various violations of the American Convention which occurred in the first process and ordered the respect in the second process of the principle of legality and protection from ex post facto laws and the demands of legal due process; which is analyzed next, in relation to the following subjects alleged: i) the alleged penalization of a medical act and ii) the alleged retroactive application of a criminal definition of a crime of affiliation with a terrorist group. 11. Although the State has responded in an exhaustive manner to the allegations of the parties regarding that ordered by the Tribunal in the first operative paragraph of the Judgment, contributing even the important part of the internal case file regarding the first and second processes followed against Mrs. De La Cruz Flores, the Court clarifies that it shall not analyze the controversy between the parties about possible violations in the second process. That analyzed in the following paragraphs, within the framework of the supervision of compliance with judgment, is if the second process had conformed with that ordered in the first operative paragraph of the Judgment issued by the Court in the present case. 1.1. Alleged penalization of the medical act 12. According to the State, in the second consecutive process against Mrs. De La Cruz Flores, she was not penalized for the carrying out of medical acts, since she was not judged “[for the] attention to a person or to various persons for reasons of fulfillment of the duty as a doctor, [but for being] a delinquent terrorist, comrade Eliana, that was part of the basic apparatus of the Socorro Popular, [that had] a mechanism […] to order and to take care of the wounded and all those that were affected in armed [confrontations], all with a system of medical attention, all with a system of clinics, all with a system of mutual relations.” In this way, for the State, De La Cruz Flores “had an active participation in favor of the terrorist organization Sendero Luminoso, […] her affiliation was not eventual or accidental, but permanent and continuous, having passed through the levels of (i) Organized Support, (ii)School, and (iii) Activist.” In this manner, the State concluded that “the participation of the accused is not found only reduced to medical activity, but to her participation as an affiliate[ed] member of a subversive group, following her directive, her plan, program and methodology and putting her medical knowledge to the service of the organization.” 13. Also, the State signaled that “if from the point of view of the general evaluation [of the evidence] one can agree or not agree with such and such witness, this is a subject […] of the merits of the matter that is not material for the supervision, unless there is criteria on the contrary.” The State “emphasiz[ed] that the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic has established in its reiterated jurisprudence for the “Evidentiary Evaluation” of the declaration of those processed and witnesses that ‘when they declare, without distinction, in different stages of the process and with the due guarantees, the Tribunal is not obligated to believe that said in the oral trial, but must make an evaluation together with all the testimonies offered during the process and [will] take into account the circumstances that have greater credibility and likeness with the facts.” In this way, the State resolved that “in the concrete case, there are diverse incriminatory declarations from the accused and witnesses acting in the preliminary and judicial level” that would affirm that the victim “was dedicated to the surgical attentions and interventions of the senderistas,” that participat[ed] in different treatments of terrorist patients,” and that she was “the one responsible for delivering medicine and giving attention to terrorist patients.” Also, the State added that “although the evidence of the Military Jurisdiction had been utilized in the second consecutive process before the ordinary Jurisdiction, the magistrates evaluate this evidence with the criteria of