58 a fair trial. Accordingly, the Court considers that the State violated the rights to personal liberty and to a fair trial embodied in Articles 7 and 8, respectively, of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 9 and 1(1) thereof. * * * 115. The Court observes that the arguments of the Inter-American Commission and of the alleged victim’s representatives in relation to Article 24 of the American Convention are related to the failure to apply the figure of in dubio pro reo to the case of Mrs. De La Cruz Flores, when it was applied in the case of four other physicians, whose circumstances were similar to hers. In this regard, the Court considers that it does not have competence to replace the domestic judge to decide whether the circumstances in which some individuals were acquitted and others convicted were exactly the same and merited the same treatment and, therefore, that the existence of a violation of Article 24 of the Convention has not been sufficiently proved. * * * 116. The Court observes that a new trial against the alleged victim is currently underway, under the provisions of Legislative Decree No. 926, based on the opinion issued by the Superior Prosecutor of the Office of the Second Special Superior Prosecutor for Terrorism on September 2, 2003 (supra para. 73(40)). 117. The Court has stated that “[in accordance with the general obligation to respect rights and adopt provisions under domestic law (Arts. 1(1) and 2 of the Convention), the State is obliged to adopt such measures as may be necessary to ensure that violations such as those established in the instant case never again occur in its jurisdiction.”103 118. In this regard, it is the State’s responsibility to ensure that the new trial against María Teresa De La Cruz Flores observes the right to freedom from ex post facto laws embodied in Article 9 of the American Convention, including a strict correlation between the behavior and the category of crime. It must also ensure compliance with the requirements of due process of law, with full guarantees of a hearing and a defense for the defendant. VIII ARTICLE 5 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) THEREOF (RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT) Arguments of the alleged victim’s representatives 119. The alleged victim’s representatives requested the Court to declare that the State had violated the right to humane treatment embodied in Article 5 of the American Convention, because: 103 Case of Suárez Rosero. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 106; Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al., supra note 29, para. 222.