16 52. The Inter-American Court has established that the judgment is the text that must be considered when deciding whether the principle of legality has been observed, so despite the existence of other current norms, only those that were considered in the judgment are relevant for determining compliance with the principle that norms must be specific and not applied retroactively.37 53. In view of the above, the existence or non-existence of Traffic Regulations 12.689/45, as alleged by the State, is irrelevant for the present case because it was not considered in the sentence of conviction. The IACHR recalls that the judgment must comply with the principle of legality as written, and not as it could have been written, so it will make no reference to said Traffic Regulations 12.689/45. 54. The cited Regulations 672/92 took effect on April 27, 1992, after the traffic accident, which occurred on March 16, 1992. The Commission therefore notes that the Chamber of Appeals, when considering the offense of negligent homicide of which Oscar Alberto Mohamed was convicted, included norms that were not in force at the time of the facts. As has been noted, according to jurisprudence of the inter-American system, an individual cannot be punished for an act that was not a crime or was not punishable or prosecutable when it was done.38 In the instant case, therefore, by completing the characterization of negligent homicide with regulations that were not in effect at the time of the facts, the Argentine State violated Oscar Alberto Mohamed’s right to have no retroactive application of criminal law, as established in Article 9 of the American Convention. 55. The IACHR notes that when the Chamber of Appeals rejected the special appeal that was filed, it attempted to correct that violation, stating that the application of Decree 692 maneuver the person to the right has the right of way. On steep hills the one descending must back up, unless pulling a trailer. Article 40: Overtaking. Overtaking must be done on the left in accordance with the following rules: a) The person who is overtaking must verify first that the road to their left is clear for a sufficient distance to avoid any risk, and that no one following them is also overtaking; b) The driver must have sufficient visibility and not start the maneuver if approaching an intersection, curve, bridge, hilltop, or dangerous place; c) The driver must signal to the vehicle the intention to pass it, by flashing the headlights or using a horn in rural areas. In all cases, the driver must use the left turn signal until the lateral displacement is concluded; d) The driver must complete the overtaking rapidly in order to return to the right side without impeding the flow of the passed vehicle; this must be done with the right turn signal; e) Once the vehicle to be overtaken is notified of the intention to pass, it must take necessary steps to facilitate it, driving to the right of the street and maintaining and possibly reducing speed; f) To indicate to vehicles behind that it is dangerous to pass, drivers shall use the left turn signal, and vehicles behind shall not overtake them. On the other hand, use of the right turn signal indicates that passing is possible; g) Trucks and special machinery shall facilitate overtaking on narrow roads, riding periodically on the shoulder; h) Under exceptional circumstances passing on the right is permitted when: 1. The driver of the vehicle ahead has signaled the intention to turn or stop on the left; 2. In a traffic jam when the left lane is not moving or is moving more slowly. 037 In this regard, see Inter-American Court, Case of De La Cruz Flores v. Peru, Judgment of November 18, 2004 (merits, reparations, and costs) Series C. No. 115, para. 88: “(…) However, membership in an organization and failure to report are the specific elements that the domestic court considers have given rise to the criminal liability of the alleged victim in the judgment of November 21, 1996. These behaviors are not included in Article 4 of Decree Law No. 25,475, which is the only substantive article on which the judgment against Mrs. De La Cruz Flores was based.” The Court therefore found, in para. 102: “the State violated the principle of legality: by taking into account as elements that gave rise to criminal liability, membership in a terrorist organization and failure to comply with the reporting obligation, but only applying an article that did not define these behaviors (…). “ 38 I/A Court H. R., Case of De La Cruz Flores v. Peru, Judgment of November 18, 2004 (merits, reparations, and costs) Series C. No. 115, para.105; Inter-American Court, Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para.175.