75 same expert witnesses stated that the book that was the object of their examination “undoubtedly affect[ed] the institutional interest of the [Chilean Navy]” (supra para. 63(23)). The judgments rendered by the Naval Court of Magallanes and the Navy Court-Martial regarding the criminal offenses of disobedience and breach of military duties make no reference to the interests on which the prohibition to publish such book was based (supra paras. 63(66) and 63(68)). The Court considers that deprivation of property on the grounds of an “institutional interest” is not in line with the Convention. 110. Regarding the statement made by Chile on the non-participation of State agents in the erasure of the full text of the book from the hard disk of Mr. PalamaraIribarne’s personal computer, the Court notes that regardless of the persons involved in such act, it was committed as a result of the order issued by the Naval Prosecutor of Magallanes to “seize the copies [of the book] that may be in his possession [… and of] any other material or document related to the publication thereof” (supra para. 63(20)). Thus, it is possible to infer that if Mr. Palamara-Iribarne “erased the full text of said book from the hard disk of his personal computer,” as it was entered on the “seizure record,” he did so as a result of such order during the above-mentioned seizure on March 1, 1993 rather than as a mere voluntary act (supra para. 63(20)). 111. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State has violated the right to property as set forth in Article 21(1) and 21(2) of the American Convention to the detriment of Humberto Antonio Palamara-Iribarne, and has failed to fulfill the general duty to respect and guarantee rights as set forth in Article 1(1) of such treaty. IX VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 9 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 1(1) AND 2 THEREOF (RULE OF FREEDOM FROM EX-POST FACTO LAWS) 112. The Commission did not file any arguments alleging the violation of Article 9 of the Convention. 113. Arguments of the alleged victim’s representatives: a) Article 229 of the Code of Military Justice, which defines the criminal offense of disobedience for which Mr. Palamara-Iribarne was convicted, “does not provide an accurate description thereof.” Furthermore, the domestic courts did not even consider that an essential element of the criminal offense alleged in the instant case is the fact that the perpetrator must have military status, a requirement which was not met in the case of Mr. Palamara-Iribarne;” b) Subparagraph (3) of Article 299 of the Code of Military Justice “contains a special broad legal definition -the purpose of which is to punish criminally any breach of military duties for which no specific punishment has been established-, whereby it should be annulled by means of a future amendment. As a matter of fact, the above-mentioned provision does not describe the criminal offense.” Furthermore, the drafting of Article 336 of the Code of Military Justice, which describes the criminal offense of breach of duties, is