90 204. In view of the foregoing (supra para. 195), the Court has not found sufficient evidence to conclude that Article 9 of the American Convention was violated, to the detriment of Wilson García-Asto, when Article 5 of Decree-Law No. 25.475 was applied in the new proceedings conducted against him. d) Regarding the first criminal proceedings against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas 205. Two criminal proceedings were brought against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas in the ordinary jurisdiction. The first proceedings were conducted before “faceless” judges who sentenced him to twenty-five years’ imprisonment in a judgment rendered on September 30, 2004 by the Superior Court of Justice of Lima (Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima), wherein he was found guilty of the crime of aggravated terrorism as defined in article 320, subparagraphs (1) and (5) of the Criminal Code of 1991, for a series of criminal acts occurred in 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 (supra para. 97(83)). Moreover, Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas was charged with “taking part in a coordination meeting held by leaders of the Regional Committee and the armed posts of the terrorist organization Shining Path,” and “having a large number of subversive documents in his house;” it was further asserted that, in relation to his work at the Ministry of Finance and later at the National Congress, “it sho[uld] be understood that, availing himself of the position he occupied in these institutions, he acted as an infiltrator[,] with the sole purpose of […] gathering information, learning about movements [and] planning meetings, which meant everything for the terrorist organization Shining Path.” 206. In this respect, the Court considers, as it has noted before,174 that, for the sake of legal certainty, it is essential that punitive norms exist and be known, or can be known, before the act or omission that infringes them and is to be punished takes place. The description of an act as wrongful and the formulation of its legal effects must precede the conduct of the individual deemed to be liable for an infringement, insofar as before a form of conduct is described as a crime, it is not considered wrongful in criminal terms. Otherwise, individuals would be unable to make their conduct conform to an existing and certain legal system embodying social reproach and its consequences. These are the grounds of the principle of non-retroactivity of unfavorable punitive norms. 207. In relation to the non-retroactivity principle, the Court notes that in the first proceedings conducted against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, he was charged with certain acts that had occurred before the coming into force of the Criminal Code of 1991, that is, criminal acts that had taken place in 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990 (supra para. 97(83)). 208. In view of the foregoing, taking into account 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 non-retroactivity principle enshrined in Article 9 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, upon applying the Criminal Code of 1991 retroactively in the first proceedings brought against him. 174 Cf. Case of De la Cruz-Flores, supra note 4, para. 104; and Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 168, para. 106.