36 with the interpretation of inter-American case law, one corollary of the principle of nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege praevia trae is the rule that criminal laws must be worded in precise and unambiguous language that narrowly defines the punishable offense and exactly determines its elements and the factors that distinguish it from other types of conduct that do not constitute punishable offenses or that 129 are punishable as other crimes. 117. The Commission has written that observance of the principle of legality of criminal law 130 enables persons to effectively determine their conduct in accordance with the law As the Commission held, “the principle of legality has a specific role in the definition of crimes; on the one hand, it guarantees individual liberty and safety by preestablishing the behavior that is penalized clearly and 131 unambiguously and, on the other hand, it protects legal certainty.” 118. The Court has similarly written that: the description of a crime shall be in precise, accurate, specific language and shall exist ex ante, especially inasmuch as criminal law is the most restrictive and severe means to establish culpability for illicit behavior, taking into account that the legal framework must afford the citizen legal certainty.132 119. The Court has also underscored the fact that a “criminal court judge, upon applying criminal law, [must] strictly abide by the provisions thereof and be extremely rigorous when likening the accused person’s conduct to the criminal definition, so as not to punish someone for acts that are not 133 punishable under the legal system.” 120. As for the risks that imprecision in describing offenses can pose, the Inter-American Court has written that “[a]mbiguity in describing offenses creates doubts and the opportunity for abuse of power, which is particularly undesirable when determining the criminal liability of an individual and 134 punishing the latter with penalties that severely affect such fundamental attributes as life or freedom.” 121. Applying these principles, the Inter-American Court has decided a number of cases by determining that the violation of the principle of legality was due, for example, to the existence of criminal offenses that “refer to behaviors that are not narrowly defined and hence could be classified 129 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Peru (2000), OEA/Ser.L./V/II.106, Doc. 59 rev. 2, June 2, 2000, pars. 80, 168; IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/SER.L/V/II.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1, corr., October 22, 2002, par. 225; I/A Court H.R, Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, Judgment of May 30, 1999, Series C No. 52, par. 121; I/A Court H.R., Cantoral Benavides Case v. Peru. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, par. 157; I/A Court H.R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, par. 174; I/A Court H.R., Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, par. 79; I/A Court H.R., Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, par. 188; I/A Court H.R., Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, par. 55. 130 IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/SER.L/V/II.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1, corr., October 22, 2002, paragraph 225, and Executive Summary, paragraph 17. 131 IACHR, Application filed with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru, cited in I/A Court H.R., Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru, Judgment of November 18, 2004 (Merits, Reparations and Costs), Series C. No. 115, paragraph 74. 132 I/A Court H.R., Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, paragraph 55; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, paragraph 63. 133 I/A Court H.R., Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, paragraph 82; I/A Court H.R., Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, paragraph 190. 134 I/A Court H.R., Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, paragraph 121; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, paragraph 174.