rights violation because it is the harshest sanction that the State can impose on an individual.” 95. 43. We must contrast, however, two different situations: cases of improper criminalization of conduct related to freedom of expression and cases in which the Court recognized the need to apply Criminal Law. In Cotton Field vs. Mexico (2009), for example, the Court discussed a series of femicides that have occurred in the country without having been properly investigated, and highlighted: (…) [T]he administrative or criminal sanctions play an important role in creating the appropriate type of capability and institutional culture deal with factors that explain the context of violence against women established in this case. If those responsible for such serious irregularities are allowed to continue in their functions or, worse still, to occupy positions of authority, this may create impunity together with conditions that allow the factors that produce the context of violence to persist or deteriorate. Based on the information available in the case file before the Court, the Tribunal finds that none of the officials supposedly responsible for the negligence that occurred in the instant case has been investigated. Specifically, the serious irregularities that occurred in the investigation of those responsible and in the handling of the evidence during the first stage of the investigation have not been clarified. This emphasizes the defenselessness of the victims, contributes to impunity, and encourages the chronic repetition of the human rights violations in question. 96 44. Having therefore established the limitation of the application of Criminal Law to cases of strict necessity, it is important to highlight the requirements related to the guarantees of due legal process. As explained (supra, para. 38), the Court defines impunity as the lack of investigation, persecution, capture, prosecution and conviction of those possibly responsible for Human Rights violations. 97 Therefore, it is not an obligation to impose a criminal sanction, but rather there are procedures that must be carried out to clarify the facts, evaluate responsibilities and, only if the individual responsibility of the prisoner is determined in a manner compatible with the protection of their Human Rights, conclude with a criminal sentence. 45. The right to judicial guarantees applies throughout this entire process, starting with the principle of criminal legality (provided for in Article 9 of the Convention) and its ramifications, as explained by the Court in Lori Berenson Mejía vs. Peru (2004): (…) crimes must be classified and described in precise and unambiguous language that narrowly defines the criminalized conduct, establishing its elements, and the factors that distinguish it from behaviors that are either not punishable or punishable but not with imprisonment. (…) Under the rule of law, the principles of legality and nonretroactivity govern the actions of all State organs, in their respective spheres of competence, particularly when they must exercise their powers to punish. In a democratic system, extreme precautions must be taken so that criminal sanctions are adopted with strict respect for the basic rights of people and after careful verification of the effective existence of the illicit conduct. In this sense, it is up to the criminal judge, at the time of applying the criminal law, to strictly adhere to its provisions and observe the greatest rigor in adapting the conduct of the incriminated person Ibid., para. 38. Cf. Case of González et al.(“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 377-8. 97 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 173. 95 96 15