49 83. Even though the higher instances did not notice the irregularities that occurred in the criminal procedure, from which the State’s international responsibility derives for the violation of Article 8 of the Convention, it did process and decide with regularity the remedies presented by the defense counsel of Mr. Fermín Ramírez. The fact that the appeals presented were not, in general, decided on a favorable manner to the interests of Mr. Fermín Ramírez, does not imply that the victim did not have access to an effective remedy to protect his rights. After an analysis of the legal and factual arguments included in the rulings of the different remedies presented in the criminal procedure, this Tribunal does not consider proven that the State violated the right to access a court, or restricted the defendant’s possibility to have an effective remedy to appeal the judgment issued against him. IX ARTICLE 9 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION WITH RELATION TO ARTICLE 2 OF THE SAME (FREEDOM FROM EX POSTO FACTO LAWS) Arguments of the Commission 84. It did not argument the violation of Article 9 of the American Convention. 85. Arguments of the representatives a) the State violated Article 9 of the American Convention with relation to Articles 2 and 4(1) of the same; b) subjective assessments, such as dangerousness or the personal characteristics of the author must be excluded, pursuant to the freedom from ex posto facto laws, as grounds for legal consequences against the defendant; c) Article 132 of the Criminal Code is a manifestation of a criminal system based on the situation of the perpetrator based on the idea of preventing future crimes through the application of the death penalty to allegedly dangerous criminals; d) the crimes, that are the grounds of the punishment, may not be attitudes or states of mind, nor vague or undefined facts, instead they must be specified in human actions described by the criminal law. If the legislator decides to punish certain behaviors, it must describe them in the provision; e) the imposition of the death penalty through the application of a law incompatible with the Convention, violates the State’s obligation to respect and guarantee Mr. Fermín Ramírez’s right to life; and f) the legal insecurity generated by the dangerousness, due to its legal indetermination, generates a wide margin for punitive discretionary behavior contrary to the demands of the Convention. It is also highly discriminatory and reflects a criminal system based on the situation of the perpetrator that does not sympathize with the dignity inherent to all human beings.