41 their criminal behavior with penalties that exact their toll on the things that are most precious, such as life and liberty. Laws of the kind applied in the instant case, that fail to narrowly define the criminal behaviors, violate the principle of nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege praevia recognized in Article 9 of the American Convention. 122. The Court therefore finds that the State violated Article 9 of the Convention. XI VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 (JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND DUE PROCESS) 123. The Commission argued that in the military court proceedings against Mr. Castillo Petruzzi, Mr. Mellado Saavedra, Mr. Astorga Valdez and Mrs. Pincheira Sáez for the crime of treason, the State violated the following rights and guarantees of due process of law contemplated in the American Convention: the right to a hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal [Article 8(1)]; the right to be presumed innocent [Article 8(2)]; the right to adequate time and means to prepare one’s defense and the right to defend oneself [articles 8(2)(c) and (d)]; the right to examine witnesses present in the court [Article 8(2)(f)]; the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court [Article 8(2)(h)]; and the right to public proceedings [Article 8(5)]. *** A COMPENTENT, INDEPENDENT AND IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL, PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED BY LAW 124. Article 8(1) of the Convention stipulates that: [e]very person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and with a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 125. Arguments of the Commission: a) Article 8(1) of the Convention recognizes every person’s right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. While at the international level trial by military tribunals is not, per se, regarded as a violation of the right to a fair trial, “an international consensus has developed in favor of the need to restrict it whenever possible, and to prohibit exercise of military jurisdiction vis-à-vis civilians, especially in emergency situations”; b) The United Nations Human Rights Committee found that the practice of military or special tribunals trying civilians “could present serious problems as far as the equitable, impartial and independent administration of justice is concerned… While the [International] Covenant [of Civil and Political Rights] does not prohibit such categories of courts, nevertheless the conditions which it lays down clearly indicate that the trying of civilians by such courts should be very exceptional …”;