them had concluded so that, for this reason also, it was not appropriate to apply the new law to their criminal conviction. 399 B. The act of the State to be considered in relation to the principle of legality and retroactivity It has already been indicated that the act of the State to be considered in these proceedings is the second instance judgment of December 28, 1995, of the Second Chamber for Criminal and Correctional Matters of the Judicial Department of Mercedes, province of Buenos Aires, which confirmed the judgment of December 29, 1994, of Court No. 7 for Criminal and Correctional Matters of the Judicial Department of Mercedes. Regarding the principle of legality and retroactivity, it must be added that, regarding this second instance judgment, Messrs. Mémoli filed an appeal on unconstitutionality before the Appellate and Criminal Guarantees Chamber because Law No. 26,551, promulgated on November 26, 2009, decriminalized defamation and libel; however, this appeal was rejected, because what they really sought, in the chamber’s opinion, was the review of the judgment, which was considered inadmissible for the reasons described supra. 400 C. Case law In this matter, it is necessary to consider, first, that the Court has stated that “the most favorable law should be interpreted as both the one that establishes a lesser punishment for the offenses, and also the laws that decriminalize a conduct that was previously considered an offense, or create a new cause for justification, innocence, or impediment to the execution of a punishment, among others”; that “[t]hese presumptions do not constitute a complete inventory of the cases that deserve the application of the principle of the retroactivity of the most favorable criminal law”; and that “[i]t should be emphasized that the principle of retroactivity is applicable in relation to laws that were enacted before the judgment was handed down, as well as during its execution, because the Convention does not establish any limit in this regard.” 401 Moreover, the Court has added that 402 “[u]nder Article 29(b) of the Convention, if any law of the State Party or any other international treaty to which this State is a party grants greater protection or regulates more broadly the enjoyment and exercise of any right or freedom, the State Party must apply the most favorable norm for the protection of human rights.” 403 And, lastly, the Court has indicated that “[i]t is necessary to recall that […] on different occasions the principle of the most favorable law has been applied in order to interpret the American Convention, so that the most favorable alternative for the protection of the rights safeguarded by the said treaty is always chosen,” 404 and that “[a]s this Court has 399 Para. 158 of the Judgment. 400 Para. 93 of the Judgment. 401 Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, supra, para. 179. 402 Idem, para. 180. 403 Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights), supra, para. 52. 404 Cf. Certain Attributes of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory opinion OC-13/93 of July 16, 1993. Series A No. 13, para. 50; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Preliminary objections. Judgment of November 18, 1999. Series C No. 61, 10