21 (infra para. 68) and esablished in Article 22 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which recognizes the principle of ex post facto laws.76 63. In view of the abovementioned, the Court has assessed in its jurisprudence the principle of the legality of criminal behavior and punishment, as well as favorability in the application of the punishment. In the present case, the Commission argued that this principle may also be applicable to regulations that govern the proceeding. 64. First, it is important to mention that, in relation to the arguments of the Commission, the Court notes an interpretation that there is a dissenting interpretation of the Court cases, which includes the citation of paragraph 175 of the case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, rendered by this Court, which states that the term "enforceable”77 (supra para. 53) made no reference to regulations governing the procedure, but rather to the prohibition regarding the retroactive application of provisions that increase punishment, as well criminal behavior which at the time the facts had not been provided for. In this case, the Court concluded that the failure to retroactively apply the more favorable criminal norm violated Article 9 of the Convention. 65. Similarly, the citations made by the Commission of the case of Del Río Prada V. Spain of the European Court of Human Rights,78 are not relevant because in that case the application of the principle of legality referred to the scope of the punishment and its implementation, and not to the regulations on the procedure. In regard to the case of David Michael Nicholas V. Australia of the Human Rights Committee,79 the Court notes that such a must verify, that at the time when the accused commited the act that led to his or her prosecution, a legal provision was in force that classified said act as punishable, and that the penality imposed did not exceed the limits established by said provision. Cf. TEDH, Case of Del Río Prada [GS], supra, para. 78 and 80, and Case of Coëme and others, supra, para. 145. 76 Article. 22 ICC. Statute: “A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court. 2. The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.” 77 In Case of Ricardo Canese V. Paraguay, concerns the conviction to a term of imprisonment for defamation and slander. Subsequent legislation amended the criminal codification and decreased penalties for the crime of defamation and established a fine as an alternative penalty. The Court concluded that the principle of retroactivity of the most favorable norm did not apply in the case, thereby violating Article 9 of the Convention. In this regard, the Court stated that the principle of non-retroactivity prevents a person from being penalized for an act that was not a crime or could not be punished or prosecuted when it took place. 78 Cf. ECHR, Case of Del Río Prada V. Spain [GS], supra, paras. 117-118. The case involves the fact that a prison moved the release date forward of the petitioner because of a Spanish law that permitted the reduction of part of the sentence with work done in prison (Article 100 of Penal Code of 1973). Subsequently, however, the High Court delayed the release date due to a change in the case law of the Supreme Court on remission of sentences (the new jurisprudence of the Supreme Court 2006 called Parot doctrine). The European Court considered whether the change of law in question concerned only the execution or the enforcement of the penalty (to which it would be excluded from the scope of Article 7 of the European Convention) or a measure that in substance constitutes a penalty. The Court found that the jurisprudential turn of 2006 was not foreseeable and modified, in a manner unfavorable to the petitioner, the scope of the penalty itself, thereby violating Article 7 of the European Convention (equivalent to Article 9 of the American Convention). The Commission's arguments referred to the judgment rendered in the the Third Section, of July 10, 2012, which was appealed by the Spanish Government to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 of the ECHR. 79 Cf. UN, Human Rights Committee, Case of David Michael Nicholas V. Australia, supra (2004). In this case, the Committee considered whether the introduction of an ex post facto law violated Article 15 of the Covenant (legality principle). The case concerns the introduction of a law that amended the previous case law on the exclusion of evidence in relation to trafficking offenses of controlled drugs. Subsequent legislation ordered that the evidence demonstrating illegal conduct be considered admissable by the courts. This led to procedures being implemented that had previously been suspended. The Committee noted that the perpetrator was convicted of offenses under the Customs Act, “whose provisions remained unchanged throughout the period in reference from the criminal conduct until the trial and conviction.” The effect of the stay of proceedings was that the elements of the offense under section 233B of the Customs Act, could not be determined. However, the illegality had not been