10 regarding the other items of evidence not submitted prior, the representatives challenged their admissibility “as being extemporaneous and irrelevant. Furthermore, [the representatives pointed out that] such documentation did not refer to supervening facts justifying their presentation after the procedural terms set forth by the […] Court had elapsed.” In turn, the Commission pointed out that it had no observations to make about this matter. 33. The Court observed that the evidence submitted by the representatives (supra para. 31) and the State (supra para. 32) together with their respective briefs of final allegations were presented extemporaneously in the proceedings before the Court and not related to the supervening facts. The representatives and the State did not allege any force majeure or serious impediment that would make this Tribunal admit such evidence at a different procedural moment in accordance with the provisions of Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure. Therefore, the Court considers that such evidence is inadmissible. * * * 34. Having examined the items of evidence which make up the file, the Court shall proceed to analyze the alleged violations to the American Convention, in the light of the facts that the Court considers proven, as well as the allegations of the parties therein. In doing so, the Tribunal shall assess them on the basis of rules of competent analysis, within the framework of the applicable law.23 VI VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13(1) AND 13(2) (FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION)24 AND ARTICLE 9 (FREEDOM FROM EX POST FACTO LAWS)25 OF THE CONVENTION, IN RELATION WITH ARTICLES 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS)26 AND 2 (DUTY TO ADOPT PROVISIONS OF DOMESTIC LAW)27 OF THE SAME CONVENTION emitted by the First Military Tribunal for the Execution of Judgments of Caracas on July 4, 2005 (case file of attachments to the petition, tomo III, attachment 85, fs. 2215 to 2219). 23 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al) supra note 18, para. 76; Case of DaCosta Cadogan, supra note 9, para. 32, and Case of Garibaldi, supra note 11, para. 53 24 Article 9 of the American Convention establishes that: No one shall be convicted of any act or omission that did not constitute a criminal offense, under the applicable law, at the time it was committed. A heavier penalty shall not be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offense was committed. If subsequent to the commission of the offense the law provides for the imposition of a lighter punishment, the guilty person shall benefit therefrom. 25 Article 13 of the Convention signals the following: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in the case file, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one's choice. 2. The exercise of the right provided for in the foregoing paragraph shall not be subject to prior censorship but shall be subject to subsequent imposition of liability, which shall be expressly established by law to the extent necessary to ensure: a) respect for the rights or reputations of others; or b) the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals. […]. 26 Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes that: