35 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. 111. Article 1(1) of the Convention reads as follows: The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 112. Article 2 of the Convention provides that: Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. 113. The Commission will examine whether the Chilean State violated the principle of legality, recognized in Article 9 of the American Convention, as a consequence of the regulation of the predicate offenses of terrorism and their use in the present case. Accordingly, the Commission’s observations will appear in the following order: i) General comments on the principle of legality; ii) relevant aspects with respect to terrorism under international law, and iii) Analysis of articles 1, 2 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act. 1. General comments on the principle of legality 114. The Inter-American Court has held that under the rule of law, the principles of legality and non-retroactivity govern the actions of all State institutions in their respective fields of competence, 126 particularly when it comes to the exercise of the State’s punitive power. It has also emphasized that in a democratic system every precaution must be taken to ensure that penalties for crime are imposed with strict respect for the basic rights of individuals, and after carefully confirming that unlawful conduct 127 effectively existed. 115. The principle of legality recognized in Article 9 of the American Convention embodies the principles of nullum crimen sine lege and nulla poena sine lege, according to which states shall not prosecute or punish persons for acts or omissions that did not, under the applicable law, constitute criminal offenses at the time they 128 were committed. 116. The Commission understands that the decision as to which acts are classified as crimes and trigger the punitive authority of the State belongs, in principle, to the latter, in the exercise of its criminal policy, based on its particular historic, social, and other circumstances. However, certain elements arise from Article 9 of the American Convention that must be observed by states when they come to exercise their authority to define crimes. Insofar as the instant case is concerned and in keeping 126 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, paragraph 177; I/A Court H.R., Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, paragraph 107; I/A Court H.R., Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, paragraph 80; .I/A Court H.R., Case of Fermín Ramírez. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, paragraph 90; and I/A Court H.R., Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, paragraph 187. 127 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, paragraph 106; citing, inter alia, Eur. Court H.R., Ezelin, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A No. 202, paragraph 45; and Eur. Court H.R., Müller and Others, Judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A No. 133, paragraph 29. See also: I/A Court H.R., Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, paragraph 81; and I/A Court H.R., Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, paragraph 189. 128 IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/SER.L/V/II.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1, corr., October 22, 2002, paragraph 225.