6 thus giving courts full discretion to increase such punishment but not to reduce it, according to the specific circumstances of the case. The fact that several DecreeLaws, one of which established the maximum limits of the penalties established in Articles 2, 4, 5, and 9 of Decree-Law No. 24.575, were subsequently enacted is a clear indication that this situation violated the nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege praevia principle in relation to punishment. Case of Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas 17. On September 30, 1994, in the first proceedings brought against him, Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas was convicted of aggravated terrorism, as described in Article 320(1)(o) and 5(o) of the Criminal Code of 1991, although the facts underlying his conviction were committed between 1987 and 1990. The Court found that the conviction infringed the rule of freedom from ex post facto criminal laws as enshrined in Article 9 of the Convention (paragraphs 205 to 208 of the judgment), but did not violate the nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege praevia principle laid down in the same provision as it equated Articles 319 and 320 of the Peruvian Criminal Code with the aforementioned Article 2, which the Court deemed to be compatible with the American Convention (paragraph 194 of the majority judgment). 18. The condemnatory judgment against Mr. Ramírez was overturned by the Constitutional Court on March 27, 2003. On May 13 of the same year, National Chamber for Terrorism (Sala Nacional de Terrorismo) quashed the proceedings and on July 31 a court specialized in terrorism quashed all proceedings in the first trial, including the prosecutor’s case and ordered that steps be taken in the new trial. In the new proceedings, which are still pending before Peruvian courts, the Special Superior Prosecutor’s Office for Terrorism (Fiscalía Superior Especializada en Delitos de Terrorismo) brought charges against Mr. Ramírez for the crimes defined in Article 320(1), (2), and (4) and Article 322 of the Criminal Code of 1991. 19. As stated above, the Court found that Article 320 of the Criminal Code was compatible with Article 9 insofar as it was assimilated to Article 2 of Decree-Law No. 24.575 (paragraph 194). As regards Article 322, the Court followed the same reasoning used in relation to Article 4 of the aforesaid Decree-Law in order to decide that it was also compatible with the Convention. 20. The same arguments advanced above to conclude that Article 2 and, as a result, also Articles 4 and 5 of Decree-Law No. 24.575 violate the nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege praevia principle are, therefore, valid to support the same position in relation to Articles 320 and 322 of the Criminal Code of Peru of 1991. REGARDING REPARATIONS TO URCESINO RAMÍREZ-ROJAS I. As a result of being arbitrarily arrested