279. The Court has also indicated that the definition of an act as illegal and the establishment of its legal effects must pre-exist the conduct of the person who is considered an offender. To the contrary, the individual would be unable to adapt his or her conduct to the clear legal order in force that expresses the reprobation of society and its consequences. 403 Similarly, pursuant to the principle of the non-retroactivity of the unfavorable criminal law, the State must not exercise its punitive powers retroactively applying criminal laws that increase the punishments, establish aggravating circumstances, or create aggravated forms of the offense. 404 280. Regarding the facts of this case, the Court notes that the 1991 Peruvian Criminal Code defines the offense of apology of terrorism in its article 316, the “crime of terrorism” in its article 319, the offense of “aggravated terrorism” in its article 320 and the offense of “membership in terrorist organizations” in its article 322 (supra para. 70). Following the establishment of the Government of Emergency and National Reconstruction, on May 5, 1992, Decree-Law No. 25,475 was issued amending the 1991 Criminal Code and establishing new wording for the “crime of terrorism,” “membership in terrorist organizations,” and apology of terrorism. 281. The Commission and the representative argued that the substantive provisions of DecreeLaw 25,475 had been applied retroactively to Ms. J., owing to: (i) the report of September 1992 in which the representative of the Public Prosecution Service requested that the preliminary investigation be expanded to include the offense of “membership in a terrorist organization” and, also, requested the application of Decree-Law 25,475, and (ii) the indictment of January 8, 1993, in which the secret prosecutor accused her of offenses established in the Criminal Code, but indicated that Decree-Law 25,475 “should be taken in account when imposing the punishment” (supra paras. 100 and 101). 282. In this regard, the Court notes that the references in both documents to a possible application of the substantive norms of Decree-Law 25,475 constitute requests by the Public Prosecution Service that were not admitted in either case. Therefore, the Court considers that, in the first stage of the criminal proceedings, substantive norms of Decree-Law 25,475 were not applied retroactively to Ms. J. 283. Furthermore, at the current stage of the proceedings, Ms. J. is also being accused of offenses defined in the 1991 Criminal Code and not for the equivalent offenses in Decree-Law 25,475. In this regard, it should be underlined that, in July 2003, the National Counter-terrorism Chamber clarified that “at the date of the presumed perpetration of the offense with which [Ms. J.] is charged, articles [319] and [320] of the Criminal Code were in force […], an offense that was not adapted to [Decree-Law 25,475], because the original norm was more beneficial to the accused.” 405 284. Hence, the Court considers that there is no evidence in either the first stage or the second stage of the criminal proceedings against Ms. J. of a retroactive application of the substantive criminal laws that prejudiced her. Consequently, it concludes that the State did not violate Article 9 of the Convention in this regard. The effects of the alleged indeterminacy of the legal definition of the acts relating to the principle of legality are examined infra. ii. The alleged indeterminacy of the conducts attributed to the presumed victim, and their legal basis 403 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 104, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, supra, para. 131. 404 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 106, and Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru, supra, para. 191. 405 Decision of the National Counter-terrorism Chamber of July 22, 2003, in case file No. 35 -93 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 54, folio 3823), and Pablo Talavera was of a similar opinion. Cf. Affidavit prepared by witness Pablo Rogelio Talavera Elguera on May 6, 2013 (merits report, folios 1081 and 1082). 83