addition, the representative argued that, in application of the same case, the expression “nonappealable judgment” should not be interpreted restrictively (supra para. 254). In this regard, the Court notes that, in the said case, the Commission established that “the expression ‘non-appealable judgment’ […] should not be interpreted restrictively, that is, limited to the meaning given to it by the domestic law of the States,” but notes that the Commission also indicated that “‘non-appealable judgment’ [should be interpreted] as expressing the exercise of jurisdiction that acquires the immutability and incontestability of res judicata.” Therefore, this Court finds no reason in the instant case that permits it to conclude that the acquittal of Ms. J. constitutes a non-appealable judgment for the effects of Article 8(4) of the Convention. 272. In addition, the representative cited, as grounds for her claim, the decisions and opinions of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the British Immigration Service, and 399 regarding Ms. J.’s legal situation (supra para. 254). In this regard, the the High Court of Cologne Court notes that the conclusions and decisions of these national and international bodies were arrived at in the context of proceedings of a different nature, the object and purpose of which was not the determination of a violation of Article 8(4) of the American Convention. Even though they constitute valid opinions with regard to the legal classification of Ms. J.’s situation, this Court considers that they are not sufficient to allow it to conclude, taking into account the other probative elements provided to the case file, that the acquittal handed down in favor of Ms. J. in June 1993 was non-appealable. 273. Consequently, the Court concludes that the State did not violate Article 8(4) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Ms. J. B.3 Alleged violations of the principle of legality and of non-retroactivity 400 B.3.1) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 274. The Commission emphasized that “it is not possible to identify clearly” the illegal conducts attributed to Ms. J., nor were “the legal basis for the charges and the trial clear or consistent, or the specific acts based on which each of the conducts is attributed to her.” The Commission argued that “the offenses of terrorism, membership in a terrorist organization, and apology of terrorism have different legal contents and different punishments,” so that “the right of defense and the principle of legality, considered together, impose the obligation of both the Public Prosecution Service and the judicial authorities to establish clearly and precisely the acts included in each of the offenses,” in order to allow “the accused […] to understand clearly the acts that are illegal under the each offense cited, [and] the punishments that correspond to the said illegal act.” The Commission also argued that the substantive provisions of Decree-Law 25,475, which was enacted after the facts, were applied retroactively in the indictment and trial of Ms. J. 399 The High Court of Cologne denied the extradition of Ms. J. in 2008, considering that the nullity decision “does not satisfy the minimum State or legal standard or due process.” In particular, this court considered that even though, from a formal point of view, the acquittal was not final, the particularities of the case should be taken into account, including that the purpose of the reforms to the counter-terrorism laws was to favor those who had been tried without due guarantees and that “the reasoning [of the nullity decision] is very superficial and does not consider the specific case.” Also, “[n]o evidence is found that the accused had any possibility of having an influence on the proceedings that resulted in this judgment.” The said court considered that “the continuation of the proceedings against [Ms. J.] would mean that a person who was acquitted in a proceeding that – according to Peruvian constitutional law – was illegal, had to accept an annulment of this acquittal judgment decided in a proceeding that was even less legal.” Judgment of the Cologne Higher Regional Court of August 22, 2008 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 36, folio 403) 400 Article 9 of the American Convention establishes that: “[n]o 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.” 81