40 116. The Commission’s first reference to the violation of Article 9 of the Convention was in its final pleading. The fact that it did not do so in its original application does not preclude the Court from examining that allegation during the proceedings on the merits, in accordance with the principle of iura novit curia.88 117. In its definition of the crime of treason, Article 1 of Decree-Law No. 25,659 refers to Article 2 of Decree-Law No. 25,475, which sets forth the sentencing guidelines for terrorism crimes and procedure for the police investigation, judicial inquiry and trial of persons who commit terrorism. 118. Article 3 of Decree-Law No. 25,659 provides that “[t]he penalty for the crime of treason […] shall be the one stipulated in Article 3, subparagraph a) of DecreeLaw No. 25,475,” which is life imprisonment. 119. The Court notes that the criminal offenses classified in Decrees-Laws 25,475 and 25,659 -terrorism and treason- are similar in certain fundamental respects. As the parties have acknowledged, the crime called treason is “aggravated terrorism,” regardless of the label the lawmaker chose to give it. In an earlier ruling, this Court held that “[b]oth Decrees-Laws refer to actions not strictly defined, so that they may be interpreted similarly within both crimes, in the view of the Ministry of the Interior and the corresponding judges and […] of the Police (DINCOTE) itself.”89 The fact that both have certain elements in common and the vague distinction between the two categories of crime is prejudicial to the defendants’ legal situation on several counts: the applicable penalty, the court with jurisdiction, and the nature of the proceedings. Under Peruvian law, this criminal conduct is classified as treason and persons charged with this crime are to be tried by a “faceless” military tribunal. The trials will be summary proceedings in which the defendant will have fewer guarantees and, if convicted, will be sentenced to life imprisonment. 120. The Court has held that [t]he meaning of the word “laws” in the context of a system for the protection of human rights cannot be disassociated from the nature and origin of that system. The protection of human rights, particularly the civil and political rights set forth in the Convention, is in effect based on the affirmation of the existence of certain inviolable attributes of the individual that cannot be legitimately restricted through the exercise of governmental power. These are individual domains that are beyond the reach of the State or to which the State has but limited access. Thus, the protection of human rights must necessarily comprise the concept of the restriction of the exercise of state power.90 121. The Court considers that crimes must be classified and described in precise and unambiguous language that narrowly defines the punishable offense, thus giving full meaning to the principle of nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege praevia in criminal law. This means a clear definition of the criminalized conduct, establishing its elements and the factors that distinguish it from behaviors that are either not punishable offences or are punishable but not with imprisonment. Ambiguity in describing crimes creates doubts and the opportunity for abuse of power, particularly when it comes to ascertaining the criminal responsibility of individuals and punishing 88. 89. Cf. Blake Case, supra note 4, para. 112. Cf. Loayza Tamayo Case, supra note 4, para. 68. 90. Cf. The Words “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A No. 6, para. 21.