91 e) Regarding the second criminal proceedings against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas 209. The Court notes that, at present, new proceedings are being conducted against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, pursuant to Legislative Decree No. 926 (supra para. 97(9)). 210. In the second proceedings against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, the order so that pre-trial investigation proceedings be commenced in the ordinary jurisdiction was amended to include the crime of membership in and affiliation with a terrorist organization as defined in Article 322 of the Criminal Code of 1991 (supra para. 97(105)). 211. The Court has held that the State “must, in keeping with the general duty to respect rights and adopt domestic provisions (Art. 1(1) and 2 of the Convention), take the necessary steps to guarantee that violations such as those included in the […] judgment do not occur again within its jurisdiction.”175 212. Along these lines, it is incumbent upon the State to ensure that the new proceedings being conducted against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas comply with the rule of freedom from ex post facto laws enshrined in Article 9 of the American Convention, including strict correlation between the type of conduct and the criminal definition. XII ARTICLE 5 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION (RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT) IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) THEREOF Arguments of the Commission 213. As regards the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention, the InterAmerican Commission has stated the following: a) “In view of the acknowledgement of responsibility made by the State and the evidence produced in the proceeding before the Court, the Commission considers that the State has violated Article 5 of the American Convention regarding Article 1(1) thereof;” b) The facts related to the “physical and psychological abuse endured by Wilson García-Asto while he was in custody at the DINCOTE facilities in 1995 [...] though they are [not] subsequent facts [...] they may be considered by the Court as part of the facts which are the subject matter of the instant case;” and 175 Cf. Case of De la Cruz-Flores, supra note 4, para. 117; Case of Castillo-Petruzzi et al., supra note 152, para. 222; and Case of Suárez-Rosero, supra note 145, para. 106.