37 121. In this regard, the Court recalls that in Advisory Opinion OC-8/87, Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights), it stated that, if Articles 7(6) and 25 of the Convention are examined together: It is possible to conclude that “amparo” comprises a whole series of remedies and that habeas corpus is but one of its components. An examination of the essential aspects of both guarantees, as embodied in the Convention and, in their different forms, in the legal systems of the States Parties, indicates that in some instances habeas corpus functions as an independent remedy. Here its primary purpose is to protect the personal freedom of those who are being detained or who have been threatened with detention. In other circumstances, however, habeas corpus is viewed either as the “amparo of freedom” or as an integral part of “amparo.”164 122. As indicated above, there is no evidence that Mr. Neptune attempted to use the domestic remedies specifically to assess the lawfulness of the deprivation of his liberty. Consequently, there is insufficient information to examine Article 7(6) in conjunction with Article 25 of the Convention. * * * 123. Based on the above, the Court declares that the State violated the right to personal liberty embodied in Article 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4) and 7(5) of the Convention, in relation to the obligation to respect this right established in Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Neptune. IX ARTICLE 9 (FREEDOM FROM EX POST FACTO LAWS)165 124. The Commission alleged that the said closing order of September 14, 2005, “implicates Mr. Neptune in the perpetration of a [‘massacre’,] when it appears that this type of ‘crime’ is not included or defined under prevailing domestic criminal law.” In the absence of clarification as to the manner in which [Mr.] Neptune is responsible for a ‘massacre’ in relation to the seven people named under the first charge, it is not possible for [Mr.] Neptune to defend himself effectively from these accusations, nor is it apparent that he is being accused of an act or omission that constitutes a criminal offence under the applicable law at the time it was committed.” 166 Consequently, the Commission alleged that “this defect in the closing order renders the accusation incompatible with the principle of legality and, therefore, constitutes the violation of Article 9 of the American Convention, together with its Article 1(1).”167 164 Cf. Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 158, para. 34. 165 Article 9 (Freedom from Ex Post Facto Laws) 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.” 166 Cf. Application submitted by the Commission, supra note 3, para. 120 (folio 131). 167 Cf. Final written arguments presented by the Commission, supra note 22, para. 61 (folio 313).