of the appealed decision,82 which requires that it be verified by a higher body that can analyze the questions as to fact, evidence, and law on which the challenged judgment is based.83 110. As was mentioned in the section on proven facts, Law 8085 provided that the decisions of the Impeachment Jury are not open to any appeal other than an appeal for clarification when the removal is ordered of the accused. The State said that Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention was not violated since, although it confirmed that there was no possibility of appealing the penalty imposed by the Impeachment Jury to a higher authority, it argued that judicial review was possible but only when a violation of due process had been demonstrated. 111. The Commission finds that the submissions of the State suggest confusion over the different aspects covered by Articles 8(2)(h) and 25 of the American Convention. The former provision enshrines the right of everyone who is punished to have their penalty reviewed by a higher authority. This includes, not a new trial, but the possibility of a comprehensive review of the legal issues as well as of the facts and evidence. The latter provision refers to the obligation of states to offer a simple and prompt recourse against violations of rights recognized in the American Convention and in the domestic system of laws. The arguments of the State regarding the possibility of judicial review of violations of due process mainly relate to Article 25 of the Convention and, therefore, will be analyzed in the appropriate section. 112. As pertains to this point, the Commission underscores that there is no dispute over the impossibility of appealing the penalty imposed by the Impeachment Jury to a higher authority in order to have the established facts, the evidence used, or the causes invoked reviewed. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the Argentine State violated the right of appeal recognized in Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, taken in conjunction with the obligations set forth in Articles 1(1) and 2 of that treaty, to the detriment of Eduardo Rico. D. The right to reasoned decisions and the principle of legality (Articles 8(1)84 and 985 of the Convention) 113. The principle of legality contained in Article 9 of the American Convention governs the actions of State organs in the exercise of their punitive power.86 That principle applies to disciplinary processes, which are “an expression of the punitive powers of the State” given that they entail an impairment or alteration of the rights of individuals as a consequence of illicit conduct.87 114. The Commission has indicated that compliance with the principle of legality enables persons effectively to determine if their conduct is lawful.88 As the IACHR has held, “The principle of legality has a specific role in the definition of crimes; on the one hand, it guarantees individual liberty and safety by pre82I/A Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, par. 165. 83 I/A Court H.R., Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations, Judgment of May 14, 2013, Series C, No. 260, par. 245. 84This article was cited earlier in this report. 85Article 9 of the Convention provides: No 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. 86 IACHR, Criminalization of the Work of Human Rights Defenders, OEA/Ser.L/V/Doc.49/15, December 31, 2015, par. 253. 87Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015, Series C No. 302, par. 257, and Case of Maldonado Ordoñez v. Guatemala, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 3, 2016. Series C No. 311, par. 89. I/A Court H.R., Baena Ricardo et al. Case v. Panama. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, pars. 106 and 108. 88IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.116.Doc 5 rev. 1, corr., October 22, 2002, par. 225, and Executive Summary, par. 17.