88 195. This Court has already explained171 that the definition of the crime of collaboration with terrorism (as established in Article 4 of Decree-Law No. 25.475) charged to Wilson García-Asto in the first proceedings conducted against him, does not infringe Article 9 of the American Convention. This criterion can also be applied to the crime of membership in or affiliation with a terrorist organization (as defined in Article 322 of the Criminal Code of 1991) charged to Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas in the second proceedings conducted against him, and to Article 5 of Decree-Law No. 25.475, charged to Wilson García-Asto in the second proceedings conducted against him. The Court finds that said criminal definitions do not infringe the provisions of Article 9 of the American Convention, for they set forth the elements of the criminalized conduct, differentiating it from acts which are either not punishable or punishable with noncriminal sanctions, and neither do they infringe other provisions of the Convention. * * * 196. The Court shall now analyze whether the State has violated the rule of freedom from ex post facto laws to the detriment of the alleged victims when, in the first proceedings conducted against them, it applied the provisions of Articles 319 and 320 of the Criminal Code of 1991 to Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas and of Articles 4 and 5 of Decree-Law No. 25.475 to Wilson García-Asto. b) Regarding the first criminal proceedings against Wilson García-Asto 197. In the first proceedings brought against Wilson García-Asto, the crimes of collaboration with terrorism and membership in and affiliation with terrorist organizations (as established in Articles 4 and 5 of Decree-Law 25.475, respectively) were invoked and applied, and provided the grounds for the condemnatory judgment rendered on April 18, 1996 by the Special Criminal Chamber for Terrorism of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima (Sala Especial de Terrorismo de la Corte Superior de Lima) (supra para. 97(27)). Said conviction and the proceedings giving rise thereto were declared null and void on January 15, 2003 (supra para. 97(31)). Nonetheless, the Court notes that said judgment resulted in the violation of Wilson García-Asto’s human rights, which violation was not remedied by the annulment of said judgment and falls within the Court’s jurisdiction.172 198. In the case under consideration, the judgment of April 18, 1996 (supra para. 97(27)) held that Wilson García-Asto had ostensibly helped an alleged member of the organization Shining Path to fix a floppy disk, that he “worked on the transcription of documents,” and that he “actively participated” in said group. In view of the foregoing, the Special Chamber for Terrorism (Sala Especial de Terrorismo) concluded that the behavior of the defendant w[as] described and punished in Articles 4 and 5 of Decree-Law No. 25.475. 171 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía, supra note 152, para. 127. 172 Cf. Case of De la Cruz-Flores, supra note 4, para. 83.