15 troops, and elements of the various arms, services, and land corps)[and the] means to commit such crime may, as pointed out in the rule, be any adequate means to offend. This crime requires generic fraud, i.e. to be aware and willing to offend.” 53. This Court has the competence – based upon the American Convention and grounded in the iura novit curia principle, which is solidly supported in international law – to analyze the possible violation of Convention provisions that have not been alleged in the pleadings submitted to it, “in the sense that the judge has the authority and even the obligation to apply the pertinent legal provisions in a case, even when the parties do not invoke them expressly,” in the understanding that the parties have had the opportunity to express their respective positions with regard to the relevant facts.43 54. In the present case the Commission and the representatives did not specifically allege the violation of Article 9 of the American Convention, which enshrines the principle of legality, and recently did so in their final written arguments. However, the Court finds that the alleged involvement of the principle of legality was treated both in the proceedings before the Commission, according to the report on the merits, as well as in the application and the written brief containing pleadings and motions, from the perspective of the legality required by Article 13(2) of the Convention. Therefore, the State has had the opportunity to express its position on the matter, as it has done regarding the legality under which Mr. Usón Ramirez was convicted. Furthermore, the facts of this case, those which the parties have had ample opportunity to refer to, demonstrate the effect had on this principle in the terms set out below. 55. The Court has pointed out that “it is the law which shall establish the restrictions to the freedom of information.”44 To that end, any limitation or restriction to such freedom shall be established by the law, both from the formal and from the material standpoint. If such restriction or limitations are under criminal law, it is important to observe the strict requirements characteristic of the criminal codification to satisfy the principle of legality. 45 In effect, the Court has declared in its previous jurisprudence that when preparing the criminal codification, it is necessary to use strict and unequivocal terms, clearly restricting any punishable behaviors, giving meaning to the principle of criminal legality. 46 This involves a clear definition of the incriminatory behavior, setting its elements, and defining the behaviors that are not punishable or the illicit behaviors that can be punishable with non-criminal measures. In particular, as regards military criminal rules, this Tribunal has established through its jurisprudence that such rules shall establish clearly and without ambiguities, inter alia, any typical criminal behaviors particular to the military forum and shall determine the nature of any illicit behavior by describing the damage or how it jeopardizes the military juridical benefits that have been seriously attacked, so that the exercise of a military punitive power is justified, as well as specifying the corresponding 43 Cf. Case of Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 172; Case of Garibaldi, supra note 11, para. 33, and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 94. 44 Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra note 39, para. 40. See also, Case of Tristán Donoso, supra note 38, para. 77; Case of Kimel, supra note 41, para. 63, and Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 89. 45 46 Cf. Case of Kimel, supra note 41, para. 63. Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment de 30 de mayo de 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 121; Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haití. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 125, and Case of Kimel, supra note 41, para. 63.