51 from behaviors that are either not punishable or punishable but not with imprisonment.96 80. Under the rule of law, the principles of legality and non-retroactivity govern the actions of all the State’s bodies in their respective fields, particularly when the exercise of its punitive power is at issue.97 81. In a democratic system, precautions must be strengthened to ensure that punitive measures are adopted with absolute respect for the basic rights of the individual, and subject to careful verification of whether or not unlawful behavior exists.98 82. In this regard, when applying criminal legislation, the judge of the criminal court is obliged to adhere strictly to its provisions and observe the greatest rigor to ensure that the behavior of the defendant corresponds to a specific category of crime, so that he does not punish acts that are not punishable by law. 83. María Teresa De La Cruz Flores was prosecuted and convicted for acts of collaboration with terrorism, under article 4 of Decree Law No. 25,475 in a judgment of November 21, 1996. Even though, in this judgment, the judge declared that María Teresa de La Cruz Flores was convicted as perpetrator of the “crime of terrorism against the State,” the Court observes that the article on which the domestic court based itself to deliver this sentence is article 4 of Decree Law No. 25,475, which defines the crime of acts of collaboration with terrorism. This sentence and the trial that produced it were declared null on June 20, 2003 (supra para. 73(39)); however, the Court observes that this judgment had effects that violated the human rights of Mrs. De La Cruz Flores, which were not repaired by its mere annulment, and fall within the competence of the Court. 84. In relation to the principle of legality, the Court will now refer to the following issues: a) the relationship between the behavior that Mrs. De La Cruz Flores was charged with in the judgment of November 21, 1996, and article 4 of Decree Law No. 25,475; b) the failure to specify which of the acts defined in the said article 4 encompassed the behavior of Mrs. De La Cruz Flores; c) the penalization of a medical activity; and d) the obligation to report possible criminal acts by physicians. 85. The said article 4 of Decree Law No. 25,475 establishes that: Anyone who voluntarily obtains, gathers, collects or facilitates any type of goods or instruments or carries out acts of collaboration that in any way facilitate the perpetration of the crimes included in Decree Law [No. 25,475] or the achievement of the goals of a terrorist group, shall be punished by no less than 20 years’ imprisonment. The following are acts of collaboration: 96 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 1, para. 174; Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 29, para. 157; and Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al., supra note 29, para. 121. 97 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 1, para. 177; and Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 107. 98 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 97, para. 106; and, inter alia, Eur. Court H.R. Ezelin judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 202, para. 45; and Eur. Court H.R. Müller and Others, judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, para. 29.