56 Mantilla Moreno indicated that “at the end of 1988 [her] ‘handler’ told [them] that he [would] be traveling for a few days and gave [them] a meeting point to meet with ‘Elíana’ (María Teresa DE LA CRUZ […]) [;] DIANA […] pointed out the house and indicated that the patient was an individual called ‘MARIO’, whose right hand had been injured[; in that house] [she] saw ‘ELIANA’ (DE LA CRUZ) again, and it appears she operated on him.” 107. Consequently, the Court considers that it is relevant to underscore that in the judgment of November 21, 1996 (supra para. 73(27)), which convicted María Teresa De La Cruz Flores, the only testimony cited in support of the judgment is the foregoing statement, which refers to acts she allegedly committed in 1988 and for which the provisions of Decree Law No. 25,475, which entered into force on May 5, 1992, were applied. 108. Moreover, in the new trial against the alleged victim (supra paras. 73(39) and ff.), an order was issued on June 9, 2004 (supra para. 73(45)), which referred to facts attributed to María Teresa De La Cruz Flores that occurred between 1989 and 1992; in other words, before the entry into force of Decree Law No. 25,475 (supra para. 73(2)). The said order modified the orders to open the pre-trial investigation of September 15 and 16, and October 1, 1995 (supra para. 73(20)), by applying the norms contained in the 1924 and 1991 Penal Codes to the facts that occurred prior to May 5, 1992, in the new trial. This was the first time that those norms were cited in the proceedings against Mrs. De La Cruz Flores. 109. In view of the above, the Court considers that the State violated the right to freedom from ex post facto laws embodied in Article 9 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of María Teresa De La Cruz Flores. * 110. * * Article 7 of the American Convention establishes that: 1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security. 2. No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto. 3. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. 4. Anyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention and shall be promptly notified of the charge or charges against him. 5. Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial. 6. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful. In States Parties whose laws provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened with deprivation of his liberty is entitled to recourse to a competent court in order that it may decide on the lawfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. The interested party or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies. […]