and the other initiated afterwards is not met either, since the proceedings took place at the same time. 86. Moreover, it indicated that although it is true that the facts for which the alleged victim was punished in the criminal proceedings against him are somewhat related, it is not possible to state that the same fact served as grounds to impose the penalties on Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio. The alleged victim was penalized in the ordinary jurisdiction for the crime of illicit drug trafficking for having authorized a second and third flight. In the military criminal proceedings, the alleged victim was penalized for the crime of failure to obey a lawful order due to noncompliance with the instructions issued by the Command. Lastly, it claimed that the military criminal proceedings were carried out based on grounds different from the ordinary criminal proceedings, not only due to the status of the defendants penalized in the former, but also the type of facts heard, which solely and exclusively affect the military and police sphere. Based on the foregoing, the State requests the Court to declare that it did not violate Article 8(4) of the Convention. A. Considerations of the Court 87. In this chapter, the main question addressed is whether the State is responsible for the violation of Article 8(4) of the Convention, given that it allegedly incurred in ne bis in idem by having prosecuted and penalized the victim in two criminal proceedings that resulted in convictions, one in the military jurisdiction and another in the ordinary jurisdiction, as well as having subjected him to military disciplinary proceedings, all based on the same factual background. 88. It is worth noting that, before this Court, there has been no previous supposition claiming that the State violated the principle of ne bis in idem or Article 8(4) of the Convention where, after a conviction, the alleged victim was processed and penalized once again for the same acts. Therefore, the scope of Article 8(4) of the Convention must be considered so as to determine whether it encompasses this supposition. 89. It is possible for the wording of Article 8(4) of the Convention to raise doubts about the scope of the principle of ne bis in idem, given that a merely exegetical understanding is limited to the case where a person is judged for the same fact from which he or she was previously acquitted, so in a literal sense the instant case would not be covered by that principle since it concerns the same fact for which the person had been convicted. This circumstance requires an analysis and adequate interpretation of Article 8(4), especially its nature, in relation to the particulars of this case. It is worth noting that the exegetical or literal method of interpretation of legal texts, according to the doctrine and widely published case law, must be balanced with other methods of interpretation included in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and other international human rights treaties. In this regard, it is important to understand that the guarantees included in Article 8 on the one hand constitute a human right enshrined in the Convention and, on the other hand, are not restrictive, so it shall be interpreted that its text encompasses everything necessary to achieve the guarantees related to substantive criminal law and other applicable international laws. 90. In Article 29(b) of the Convention, the Court notes that “[n]o provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as: [...] b) restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any of State Party or by virtue of any other convention to which one of the said States is a party [...].” In this regard, Article 14(7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) establishes that “[n]o one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offense for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country.” 90 According to the ICCPR, ne bis The Human Rights Committee has issued 35 general comments (the last in 2014), which have included the content of the ICCPR and the scope of various principles applicable to the administration of justice, including the principle 90 22