obligations, had the duty to adopt a reasoned decision (duty to provide grounds), based on the arguments presented by the parties and the available evidence, providing its own reasoning and assessing the recommendation of the Investigative Council. In these circumstances, not only was Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio not heard in the disciplinary proceedings, but the Army General Command did not assess any evidence, limiting itself to quoting two regulations of the Law on the Military Status of Army, Navy and Air Force Officers, regarding the effects of retirement and the jurisdiction of the Army General Command to approve personnel actions. 132 156. Due to the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State also violated the duty to provide grounds enshrined in Article 8(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio. 157. Lastly, the Court considers that the facts described above do not constitute an additional violation of the right to presumption of innocence established in Article 8(2) of the Convention, as requested by the representative. A.2.3. Freedom from ex post facto laws (Article 9 of the Convention) 158. Article 9 of the American Convention provides that: “[n]o 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.” This Court has interpreted that freedom from ex post facto laws is applicable not only in the criminal jurisdiction; rather, its scope extends to administrative punitive action.133 159. In this regard, the Court has already established that both the recommendation of the Investigative Council and that of the Army General Command lacked grounds, since it was unable to observe any subsumption regarding the offense and acts attributed to the alleged victim (supra para. 156). The Court does not have evidence to verify that the sanctions applied to Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio corresponded to acts that had not been previously established as administrative offenses, or that the sanction applied was materially different from that contemplated in the internal regulations for the facts that he was charged with. Therefore, it does not find a violation of Article 9 of the Convention. A.2.4. Other arguments presented regarding the disciplinary proceedings 160. Regarding the representative’s argument that the competent body to carry out the investigation in the disciplinary proceedings was the Army’s Intelligence Division (DINTE) and not the Inspectorate of the Leoncio Prado Detachment (supra para. 140), the Court points out that the representative did not provide the regulatory provisions or evidence from which it could be inferred that DINTE had jurisdiction on the subject matter and that it was the body responsible for carrying out the investigation. Consequently, the Court does not have evidence to confirm this argument. Cf. Order of the Army General Command, March 3, 1995 (evidence file, folios 82 and 83), which indicated the following: “Having seen RCGE 0492 SG-CGE/CONS INV of February 23, 1995 which approves the minutes of the session of the Investigative Council for Junior Officers No. 007-95, held on February 7, 1995, in which the decision was made to retire intelligence lieutenant Rosadio Villavicencio as a disciplinary measure. CONSIDERING THAT: Legislative Decree 757 (Law on the Military Status of Army, Navy and Air Force Officers), in Article 55, subparagraph f) and Article 61, regulates retirement as a disciplinary measure set forth in Article 66 of the aforementioned legal instrument, that an Officer who is retired shall remain in the reserve for up to two years after passing the age limit corresponding to his rank; That Supreme Decree 041 DE/SG of December 15, 1989, in Article 2 authorizes the Army General of the Army General Command to approve personnel actions for junior officers of the Institution; Pursuant to that proposed by the Division General of Army General Command: DECIDES…” 133 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo v. Panama. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001, para. 106. 132 36