2 all of them punished with "mandatory penalty of death"). Overstepping such limits implies violating the principle of legality. It has been thus understood by InterAmerican case law, which in this sense has incorporated into the notion of legality a “material” element. 8. It is obvious that it is necessary to take into account at this point the rules in the American Convention about legitimate restrictions or limitations to the enjoyment of rights and freedoms. This leads us on to analyze the concept of “laws” employed in Article 30 of the Convention, and the relationship between duties and rights, to which Article 32 thereof refers, besides the allusion to other restrictions associated with certain rights and freedoms, provided in the precepts dealing therewith. The case law of the Court has explored this matter and adopted definitions that make up InterAmerican Human Rights Law. The aforementioned examination goes further, of course, than the mere verification that a certain behavior ─ whichever it may be ─ is described in a document clothed with the formalities of a criminal statute. 9. As it has already been observed, human rights confer legitimacy upon the punitive statute and, at the same time, limit its scope and operation. Criminal Law occupies a “frontier” area, so to speak, between legitimate public reproach ─ entailing penal consequences ─ and excessive incrimination ─ that implies overacting the punitive function. None of the foregoing is alien to thinking about penal legality, which is not just literally including any conduct, at the lawmaker's discretion. 10. In short, when considering whether Article 9 of the Pact of San Jose has been violated, the Tribunal does not exclusively analyze if there is or there is not a provision incriminating the conduct examined, but also the way it is done and the nature and the characteristics of the reproached behavior. If it were not so, it would be enough Were it not so, it would be enough to enact into statute criminal descriptions “made to measure” in order to avoid the responsibility that could be incurred, under Article 9 of the Convention, by an arbitrary or an excessive description. It is worth imagining the outcome of such a narrow “legality” standard. Public Attorneys 11. I also wish to dwell on the Public Attorneys (hereinafter also “the PAs”), that has played, and still plays, a leading role in criminal prosecution, lato sensu. Obviously, this is hardly the place to mention the historic development of the Public Attorneys. However, it is advisable to note two substantial points which allow us to perceive the nature, to appreciate the performance and to establish the characteristics of the PAs: a) this figure appeared and acquired importance as a “magistrate for legality”, and still maintains such character (described with different expressions); and b) it appears with different characteristics and assumes diverse powers (generally powers in the nature of duties) in the several national systems, which nonetheless show a certain trend towards uniformity and harmony. In Latin American Law, the Public Attorneys has many roots, coming from: Spain, France and the United States of America; in some countries and at certain points in time, other sources concurred. All of them have contributed to cast particular institutions, even though radically coincident among themselves. 12. I do not consider it reasonable to “adjust” Public Attorneys to a single pattern, without accepting variants nor recognizing specific national developments and needs. Such dominant models may generate disturbances or malfunctioning in the legal system and in its bearing on the diverse circumstances wherein its rules must be