76 inaccurate. The above-mentioned criminal definitions of disobedience and breach of military duties constitute a violation of the rule of freedom of ex post facto laws as set forth in Article 9 of the American Convention; c) The condemnatory judgment for the criminal offenses of disobedience and breach of duties has violated the rule of freedom of ex post facto laws, as the court of first instance and the appeals court did not abide by the scope of the legal provisions applied (Articles 299(3) and 337(3) of the Code of Military Justice), and sanctioned Mr. Palamara-Iribarne’s claim to legally exercise his right to freedom of expression; and d) It is the duty of lawmakers to prevent acts which are not illegal from being incriminating, and it is the duty of judges to prevent criminal definitions from being interpreted in such a way as to punish legal acts. 114. The State did not submit any independent arguments to refer specifically to the alleged violation of Article 9 of the Convention. Considerations of the Court 115. Article 9 of the Convention sets forth 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. 116. In passing judgment on the alleged violations of Article 8 of the Convention, the Court shall take into consideration the foregoing representatives’ arguments on the violation of Article 9 of said treaty. X VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 8 AND 25 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 1(1) AND 2 THEREOF (JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION) 117. The Commission did not file any arguments alleging the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 118. Arguments of the alleged victim’s representatives a) Regarding the right to a hearing (article 8(1) of the Convention), they argued that: i) this right necessarily implies that an oral hearing be held, at which arguments may be offered before a judge, evidence may be directly tendered to the court, and evidence may be contested;