81 Convention) and such measures as may be necessary to guarantee that violations as the ones declared in the […] judgment do not oc[cur] again in its jurisdiction.”161 175. In this regard, it is the duty of the State to guarantee that in the new proceedings brought against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas the requirements of due process of law are met, with full guarantees regarding the hearing and defense of the defendant. XI ARTICLE 9 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) (FREEDOM FROM EX POST FACTO LAWS) Arguments of the Commission 176. In relation to the alleged violation of Article 9 of the Convention, the InterAmerican Commission stated that: a) The sentences imposed on Wilson García-Asto and Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, “as well as the new proceedings br[ought] against them on the basis of the application of the same rules [...], under the reinterpretations [required] from Peruvian judges by the judgment rendered by the Constitutional Court on January 3, 2003, violate the nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege praevia principle; b) The interpretation of the definition of the crime of terrorism made by the Constitutional Court of Peru in its judgment of January 3, 2003 “provides no solutions for the serious deficiencies and flaws that have persisted in the definition of the crime of terrorism since it was drafted, inasmuch as it preserves its repressive nature and continues to imperil protected rights and guarantees;” c) The crime of terrorism as defined in Articles 4 and 5 of Decree-Law No. 25.475 and the crime defined in Articles 319 and 320 of the Criminal Code of 1991 contain “criminal definitions intrinsically linked to [the] definition of Article 2 of Decree-Law No. 25.475;” d) “The definition of the crime of terrorism set forth in Article 319 of the Criminal Code of 1991 and the one included in Article 2 of 1992 Decree [Law No.] 25.475, in describing said conduct, guide the interpretation of other criminal rules defining different types of conduct [...]. A separate judicial interpretation of each norm to indeterminately subsume the conduct of the accused and convicted person indefinitely not only violates the non bis in idem principle, but also entails serious consequences for due process and the right to freedom;” 161 Cf. Case of De la Cruz-Flores, supra note 4, para. 117; Case of Castillo-Petruzzi et al, supra note 152, para. 222; and Case of Suárez-Rosero, supra note 145, para. 106.