38 required and that “any action on the part of the public authorities that goes beyond those limits, which must be specified with precision in the decree promulgating the state of emergency, would … be unlawful.”86 The limits imposed upon the actions of a State come from “the general requirement that in any state of emergency there be appropriate means to control the measures taken, so that they are proportionate to the needs and do not exceed the strict limits imposed by the Convention or derived from it.”87 110. As to the State’s alleged violation of Article 7(5) of the Convention, the Court is of the view that those Peruvian laws that allow the authorities to hold a person suspected of the crime of treason in preventive custody for 15 days, with the possibility of a 15-day extension, without bringing that person before a judicial authority, are contrary to the provision of the Convention to the effect that “[a]ny person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power [...].” 111. Applying the laws in force to this specific case, the State held Mr. Mellado Saavedra, Mrs. Pincheira Sáez and Mr. Astorga Valdez in custody, without judicial oversight, from October 14, 1993, to November 20, 1993, the date on which they were brought before a military court judge. Mr. Castillo Petruzzi, for his part, was detained on October 15, 1993, and brought before the judge in question on November 20 of that year. This Court finds that the period of approximately 36 days that elapsed between the time of detention and the date on which the alleged victims were brought before a judicial authority is excessive and contrary to the provisions of the Convention. 112. The Court therefore finds that the State violated Article 7(5) of the Convention. X VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 9 (PRINCIPLE OF NULLUM CRIMEN NULLA POENA SINE LEGE PRAEVIA AND FREEDOM FROM EX POST FACTO LAWS) 113. Article 9 of the Convention provides that: No one shall be convicted of any act or omission that did not constitute a criminal offense, under the applicable law, at the time it was committed. A heavier penalty shall not be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offense was committed. If subsequent to the commission of the offense the law provides for the imposition of a lighter punishment, the guilty person shall benefit therefrom. 114. Arguments of the Commission: 86. Habeas corpus in emergency situations (Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987. Series A No. 8., para. 38, and Judicial guarantees in states of emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 36. 87. Judicial guarantees in states of emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and Human Rights), supra note 86, para. 21. 8 American Convention on