53 204. Finally, it held that “the case involved no ‘change in the procedural rules,’ but rather, was a disagreement with the standard of interpretation used by the Supreme Court of Argentina for rules of applying the statute of limitations in criminal procedures.” The State therefore requested that the arguments by applicants regarding breach of article 9 of the Convention be dismissed. B. Considerations of the Court 205. The Court will examine in this chapter the arguments by representatives De Vita and Cueto and by the State as to whether the Supreme Court’s application of the concept of “consequences of the trial” in its decision concerning the statute of limitations violated the principle of freedom from ex post facto laws. The Court notes that the Inter-American Commission made no reference to this alleged violation of the American Convention. 206. Article 9 of the American Convention reads: [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. 207. In this regard, the jurisprudence constante of the Court has held that the definition of an act as unlawful, and the determination of its legal effects must precede the conduct of the person being regarded as an offender. Otherwise, people would be unable to fit their actions to an existing, certain legal order that expresses social condemnation and the consequences of such actions.196 The Court has also stated that the right to freedom from ex post facto laws is designed to prevent a person being penalized for an act that, when it was committed, was not an offense or could not be punished or prosecuted. 197 The principle of freedom from ex post facto laws as applied to the most favorable criminal laws also means that, if subsequent to the commission of the offense the law provides for the imposition of a more lenient punishment, the guilty person shall benefit therefrom. 198 208. The Court, in this regard, has analyzed the principle of freedom from ex post facto laws in its case law as applicable to criminal conduct and sentencing, as well as the principle of favorable application of sanctions.199 In the case at hand, representatives De Vita and Cueto point to violation of this principle when a provision in the Criminal Code was invoked to reject the applicants’ request for application of the statute of limitations. The Court will therefore examine whether the application of the concept of “consequences of the trial” by the Supreme Court met the requirements of lawfulness and predictability as outlined in its jurisprudence constante. 196 Cfr. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, par. 106, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, Members and Activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, par. 161. 197 Cfr. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, par. 175, and Case of Liakat Alibux v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 30, 2014. Series C No. 276, par. 60. 198 199 Cfr. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, par. 178, and Case of Liakat Alibux v. Suriname, par. 60. Cfr. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, par. 121; Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, Members and Activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, par. 162.