38 125. The Court has considered that the principle of legality (freedom from ex post facto laws) is one of the central elements of criminal prosecution in a democratic society. By establishing that “no one shall be convicted for any act or omission that did not constitute a criminal offense, under the applicable law,” Article 9 of the Convention obliges the States to define these criminal “acts or omissions” as clearly and precisely as possible. In this respect, the Court has established: […] Regarding the principle of legality (freedom from ex post facto laws) in the criminal sphere, […] the classification of types of crimes supposes a clear definition of the criminal conduct, which establishes its elements and permits it to be differentiated from conducts that are not punishable or unlawful conducts that can be penalized with non-penal measures. Under the rule of law, the principles of legality and non-retroactivity govern the actions of all the organs of the State, in their respective jurisdictions, particularly in the case of the exercise of their punitive powers. In a democratic system it is necessary to exercise extreme caution to ensure that punishments for crimes are adopted with strict respect for fundamental human rights and following a careful verification of the effective existence of the unlawful conduct. In this regard, it is the responsibility of the criminal judge, when applying the criminal law, to abide strictly by the latter’s provisions, and to observe the greatest rigor in ensuring that the conduct of the accused is adapted to the type of crime, so that he does not penalize acts that are not punishable by law.168 126. In the instant case, the Court observes that the said closing order did indicate that “there were sufficient charges and evidence” against Mr. Neptune, among others, to prosecute him as an “accomplice” in relation to “La Scierie massacre that occurred on February 11, 2004, which resulted in the death of numerous persons…” (supra para. 55). In other words, it is one of the facts attributed to him. It is true, as the Commission and the representative have alleged and the expert witness Mr. Vieux mentioned, that an examination of the Haitian Criminal Code 169 shows that it does not contain any crime of “massacre.”170 It is also true that the norms of the Criminal Code cited in the closing order, and for which Mr. Neptune could eventually be tried, refer to other type of crimes that do not include the term “massacre” among their elements.171 Furthermore, it is unclear from the text of this order whether this reference to “massacre” corresponds to the juridical designation of one of the specific crimes of which he was accused, or whether it was only a general description of the events that took place in La Scierie in February 2004 that were attributed to him. In any case, Mr. Neptune has not been tried or convicted based on the contents of this procedural act that, in addition, was issued by a court that, in principle, did not have competence to do so. Accordingly, the Court finds that it has not been provided with elements to determine the State’s international responsibility in relation to this point alleged by the Commission. Notwithstanding, it should be noted that the prequalification of 168 Cf. De La Cruz Flores v. Perú. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, paras. 79-82, and Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 48, para. 90. See also, Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Perú. Merits, reparations and costs, supra note 51, para. 121; Lori Berenson Mejía v. Perú. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, paras. 125-126, and Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, paras. 174-177. 169 The text of the Haitian Penal Code was provided to the case file by the deponent providing information, Mario Joseph. 170 There is just one reference to “massacre” in Article 68 of the Haitian Penal Code, as a purpose of the crime of “an attack on a person’s life” (atentado), but not as a type of crime in itself. 171 However, the closing order does not cite Article 68 of the Penal Code either.