in idem contains a procedural guarantee (no one shall be tried) and also a substantive guarantee of criminal law (also called “the merits”), which is expressed with the addition of “or punished.” 91. Without detriment to the above, if we were to understand the Convention to contain only the procedural guarantee and not the substantive guarantee –as would follow from a literal interpretation– then it would allow States to impose multiple penalties for the same fact, which is not permitted by any criminal law in effect in any of the States Parties or, according to the ICCPR, in the Universal Human Rights System. It is worth mentioning that Peru signed the ICCPR on August 11, 1977, and ratified it on April 28, 1978.91 92. Article 8(4) of the Convention is part of the section “Right to a Fair Trial,” meaning that it clearly refers to a procedural guarantee. Criminal procedural law (also known as “criminal procedure”) is different from criminal law (also called “substantive criminal law”) due to the different nature of their sanctions: the violation of criminal procedure would result in an annulment, while the violation of criminal law would entail a penalty. Therefore, its provisions must contribute to substantive criminal law. 92 “Criminal law solely determines the penalty applicable in each case and its requirements; criminal procedure defines the human activities that must be carried out to impose that penalty”; therefore, “criminal procedure is inconceivable without criminal law.”93 93. Based on the foregoing, the “judicial” guarantee that prohibits ne bis in idem, due to its procedural nature, should be understood as a means to materialize substantive criminal law. Consequently, as limited as the text may be, it cannot be interpreted in a sense contrary to all criminal laws of the States Parties and the dominant global doctrine and case law or as opposed to the main instrument of the Universal Human Rights System and the rational understanding of law, whereby only one penalty may be imposed for one crime, while two or more penalties may be imposed for two or more crimes. Since any other understanding is inadmissible, the definitive conclusion is that regardless of the interpretation given to Article 8(4) of the Convention, even admitting ad demostrationem that it omits the substantive criminal law aspect of that guarantee, it can never be interpreted that the Convention disregards the prohibition of ne bis in idem. 94. Otherwise, it would allow for a person to be punished for a crime and, having already served the punishment, be tried and punished again for the same crime, which would result in an unending chain of convictions interrupted only by the statute of limitations. A procedural provision, as limited as it may be, can never permit a solution contrary to substantive criminal law, simply because the goal of criminal procedure is to implement substantive criminal law, not to distort it in any way by permitting abnormal solutions, including to the key principle of ne bis in idem. Therefore, the only interpretation of Article 8(4) of the Convention that prevents this consequence is that the principle of substantive criminal law that prohibits the imposition of multiple punishments for the same offense is implicit in that instrument. of ne bis in idem. In General Comment No. 13 of 1984, the Committee noted that “in examining State reports, different views have often been expressed as to the scope of paragraph 7 of Article 14. Some States parties have even felt the need to make reservations in relation to procedures for the resumption of criminal cases. It seems to the Committee that most States parties make a clear distinction between a resumption of a trial justified by exceptional circumstances and a re-trial prohibited pursuant to the principle of ne bis in idem as contained in paragraph 7.” Thus, the Committee considered that “[t]his understanding of the meaning of ne bis in idem may encourage States parties to reconsider their reservations to Article 14, paragraph 7.” In General Comment No. 32 of 2007, the Committee set forth that paragraph 7 of Article 14 of the Covenant “embodies the principle of ne bis in idem. This provision prohibits bringing a person, once convicted or acquitted of a certain offence, either before the same court again or before another tribunal again for the same offence; thus, for instance, someone acquitted by a civilian court cannot be tried again for the same offence by a military or special tribunal.” The Committee considers that “Article 14, paragraph 7 does not prohibit retrial of a person convicted in absentia who requests it, but applies to the second conviction.” 91 This information is available on the United Nations website, at the following link: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-4&chapter=4&lang=en#EndDec 92 Cf. Claus Roxin, Derecho Procesal Penal (Ediciones del Puerto, Buenos Aires, 2000), p. 1. 93 Cf. Ernst Beling, Derecho Procesal Penal (Labor, Barcelona, 1945), p. 6. 23