79 163. The relevant phrases of Article 8 of the American Convention establish that: […]. During the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: […] f) the right of the defense to examine witnesses present in the court and to obtain the appearance, as witnesses, of experts or other persons who may throw light on the facts; […] 164. In the instant case, it has been proved that, in the criminal proceedings filed against Mr. Canese, he was not allowed to obtain a hearing for other persons who, as witnesses and expert witnesses, could “throw light on the facts.” During the proceedings in first instance, after having issued an order summoning the witnesses proposed by Mr. Canese to a hearing, the judge revoked this decision and ordered the evidentiary stage to be closed. Consequently, through judicial negligence, no testimonial evidence was provided, eliminating the possibility of Mr. Canese presenting probative material in his defense that could “throw light on the facts.” Furthermore, no testimonial evidence was provided before the Third Chamber of the Court of Criminal Appeal. 165. Mr. Canese’s defense consisted in repeating before the courts that his statements were not addressed at the complainants, but referred to Mr. Wasmosy, in the context of the electoral campaign for the presidency of the Republic. The courts considered that the ratification of his declarations in his statement during the preliminary examination and during the conciliation stage, constituted a “‘simple confession’ of the offense.” 166. Based on the above, the Court considers that the Court violated Article 8(2)(f) of the American Convention to the detriment of Ricardo Canese. 167. In view of all the foregoing, the Court declares that the State violated Article 8(1), 8(2) and 8(2)(f) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Ricardo Canese. XI VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 9 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) (FREEDOM FROM EX POST FACTO LAWS – PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY AND RETROACTIVITY) Arguments of the Commission 168. Regarding Article 9 of the Convention, the Commission stated that: a) The fundamental right embodied in Article 9 of the Convention imposes on the State the obligation to apply the most favorable criminal norm to the defendant, even if it is promulgated after the fact or the conviction; b) Paraguay violated Article 9 of the Convention to the detriment of Ricardo Canese, because it did not apply the most favorable criminal norm. Mr. Canese was condemned for the offense of slander under the 1914 Paraguayan Penal Code, which established a sanction of from 2 to 22 months’