55 social reproach and its consequences were expressed. These are the foundations of the principles of legality and unfavorable non-retroactivity of a punitive rule.”192 184. Despite the fact that neither the Commission or the representatives expressly alleged the violation of Article 9193 of the Convention that enshrines the principle of freedom from Ex Post Facto Laws, but that does not preclude the Court from applying it. The precept contained therein constitutes one of the fundamental principles in a Rule of Law to impose limits to the punitive power of the State and would be applicable, in any case, by virtue of a general principle of law, iura novit curia, on which international jurisprudence has repeatedly relied and under which a court has the power and the duty to apply the juridical provisions relevant to a proceeding, even when the parties do not expressly invoke them.194 In this respect, the Tribunal deems that the facts of this case, acknowledged by the State and regarding which the parties have had ample possibility of making reference to, constitute a violation of this principle under the terms mentioned below. 185. As has been held, Article 67 of Decree Law 16 of 1960, established that “any alien who evades the order of deportation by staying in the country in a clandestine way or who flouts the penalty by returning to the country, shall be sentenced to two (2) years of agricultural work in the Penal Colony of Coiba and will be obliged to leave the country at the end of that period.” Instead, Mr. Vélez Loor was given a “two-year prison term in one of the Penitentiary Centers of the country” when he reentered Panama after a deportation order (supra para. 94). Even if the Court already declared the incompatibility of this type of measures with the Convention (supra paras. 161 to 172), the penalty imposed on Mr. Vélez is not consistent with what was established in the domestic legislation. 186. The State defended the lawfulness of such proceeding by means of a ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of Panama of December 26, 2002 and other precedents. There, it was established that “the literal application of said precept is unworkable, particularly in this moment at which, in the eyes of everyone, the competent public entities have made efforts to turn the colony of Coiba, a penitentiary center, into a tourist and ecological place. Therefore, it is illogical, before such circumstances, to require the immigration authorities to literally apply the abovementioned Article 67, when it is widely known that it is inapplicable […]. As a consequence, the full Court deems that, an interpretation of Article 67, more in keeping with reality and to make its application effective, leads to the establishment that the penalty of imprisonment for said norm allows the immigration authority to impose on deported aliens, who had failed to comply with the order implied in said decision, to be fulfilled in penitentiary centers of the country different than the Penal Colony of Coiba, according to the norm examined.”195 However, the State specified that said situation changed as of the 192 Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 139, para. 106, citing cf., inter alia, Eur. Court HR, Ezelin v. France (Application no. 25196/94) Judgment of 15 November 2001, para. 45, and Eur. Court HR, Müller et al. v. Switzerland (Application no. 10737/84) Judgment of 24 May 1988, para. 29. 193 Article 9 of the Convention states: 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. 194 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 51, para. 163; Case of Usón Ramírez, supra note 10, para. 53, and Case of Garibaldi, supra note 9, para. 33. 195 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Panama of December 26, 2002, wherein it decided upon the legality of the holding of aliens punished via the application of Article 67 of Decree Law 16 of 1960 in the national prison system centers other than the Coiba penal colony. (Includes judgments mentioned in it with background; see items 16 to 21) (case file of the evidence, tome X, annex 15 to the State's final arguments, folios 4046 to 4054).