18 norm apply, in principie, to the substantive norms that define criminal offenses. Nevertheless, the Commission considered that in certain circumstances the application of the procedural norms can have substantive effects relevant to the analysis of Article 9 of the Convention. The Commission cited the case of Ricardo Canese V. Paraguay in that: [the right to freedom from ex post laws] is designed to prevent a person being penalized for an act that, when it was committed, was not an offense or could not be punished or prosecuted.”66 The Commission concluded that the jurisprudence of the Court tends to apply an extensive interpretation of Article 9 of the Convention, not limiting its application to the norms that criminalize an act, but also to those norms that permit the actual possibility of prosecution. Moreover, it noted that the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Committee in recent cases accepted the prohibition on nonretroactivity of the law in regard to procedural norms. 67 54. In regard to the possibility of prosecuting high-ranking officials, the Commission highlighted that while Article 140 of the Constitution establishes criminal liability for punishable acts committed in the discharge of their duties, no high officer was prosecuted for crimes committed in their official capacities. Moreover, it noted that the State has confirmed that the adoption of IPOHA was necessary in order to proceed with the prosecution of high ranking officials. By virtue of the above, even if the Indictment of Political Officer Holders Act is procedural in nature, “it was not a mere change in procedural rules but a norm enacted with the purpose of allowing, for the first time, the prosecution of such officers.” The Commission considered that in the instant case it was not foreseeable for the petitioner that the State could prosecute him before the regulation of Article 140 of the Constitution by means of the IPOHA. Also, the Commission considered that the change that was implemented by the enactment of that law was not only a procedural aspect but rather that it had wider and more substantive effects to the detriment of Mr. Alibux. Accordingly, the Commission concluded that the application of that norm to events that took place before it entered into force constitute a violation of the right guaranteed in Article 9 of the American Convention. 55. The Legal Representative, in its oral arguments agreed with the Commission and argued that the State violated Article 9 of the Convention. The representative noted that although the acquisition of the building complex was completed in July 2000, the alleged victim could not have been accused without the implementation of Article 140 of the Constitution, and thus the application of the IPOHA was applied retroactively and contrary to Article 9. Moreover, the IPOHA was approved after the Prosecutor General filed his request before the National Assembly, and was thereby a retroactive application of this law. Likewise, the representative noted that only the alleged victim was prosecuted, although other people were involved in the crime of forgery. 56. The State expressed that the actions for which Mr. Alibux was prosecuted have been codified since 1947 in the Foreign Exchange Act and since 1910 in Articles 278 and 386 of the Penal Code. As such, the judgment of November 5, 2003 of the High Court convicted Mr. Alibux of punishable acts that at the time they were committed they were crimes under the legal code of Suriname. Therefore, according to the interpretation of the text, the State 66 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese V. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 31 de agosto de 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 175. 67 The Commission cited the Organization of the United Nations (UN), Human Rights Committee, Case of David Michael Nicholas V. Australia, Comunicación No. 1080/2002, UN Doc. CCPR/C/80/D/1080/2002, March 24, 2004, para. 7(7), which establishes that: “changes in rules of procedure and evidence after an alleged criminal act has been committed, may under certain circumstances be relevant for determining the applicability of article 15, especially if such changes affect the nature of an offence.” Cf. European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Case of Del Rio Prada V. Spain, No. 42750/09. Judgment of July 10, 2012 (Judgment of the Third Section).