89 199. The Court notes that collaboration with terrorism and membership in and affiliation with terrorist organizations are crimes that, owing to their characteristics, are mutually exclusive and incompatible. Along these lines, on March 10, 2003, upon issuing an order so that pre-trial investigation proceedings be commenced in the ordinary jurisdiction in the second proceedings brought against Wilson García-Asto for the crime of membership in and affiliation with terrorist organizations, the First Special Criminal Court for Terrorism (Primer Juzgado Especializado Penal en Delito de Terrorismo) (supra para. 97(32)) expressed that: […] in the [crime of] membership in and affiliation with terrorist organizations, what is punished is the mere fact of being a member of an organization, irrespective of whether or not activities are performed [.] […] A collaborator, instead, is a person who does not belong to the organization […]. The main difference between a member of a terrorist organization and a collaborator lies [in] that the former belongs to the organization and performs ‘intraneus’ (insider) acts, whereas the latter may be any person who is not a member of the organization and performs ‘extraneus’ (outsider) acts. 200. The Court believes that asserting that both the definitions of the crime of collaboration with terrorism and that of membership in and affiliation with terrorist organizations (as established in Articles 4 and 5 of Decree-Law No. 25.475, respectively) are applicable to the same conduct, is incompatible with the nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege praevia principle enshrined in the Convention, since said criminal definitions are mutually exclusive and incompatible. 201. Furthermore, Article 4 of Decree-Law No. 25.475 describes numerous and different forms of criminal conduct constituting the crime of collaboration with terrorism. In its judgment, the national court failed to specify which of those forms of conduct were imputable to the alleged victim to hold him responsible for the crime.173 202. In view of the foregoing, taking into consideration that the State acknowledged the facts which occurred prior to September 2000 (supra paras. 52 to 60), the Court considers that the State violated the nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege praevia principle enshrined in Article 9 of the American Convention to the detriment of Wilson García-Asto, upon convicting him of both the crime of collaboration with terrorism and membership in and affiliation with a terrorist organization in the first proceedings conducted against him. c) Regarding the second criminal proceedings against Wilson García-Asto 203. The second proceedings conducted against Mr. García-Asto were commenced on January 15, 2003 (supra para. 97(31)), after the first proceedings were annulled. In the new proceedings, the defendant was charged with the crime of membership in and affiliation with terrorist organizations as defined in Article 5 of Decree-Law No. 25.475 (supra para. 97(32)). These proceedings resulted in the acquittal of the alleged victim on January 5, 2004. 173 Cf. Case of De la Cruz-Flores, supra note 4, para. 89.