51 by pre-establishing the behavior that is penalized clearly and unambiguously and, on the other hand, it protects legal certainty.”179 226. The Court itself wrote that the description of a crime must be in clear, exhaustive and precise language and drafted beforehand, especially inasmuch as criminal law is the most restrictive and severe means to establish responsibilities for unlawful conduct, and considering that the legal system must afford the citizenry legal certainty.180 227. The Court has also written that when enforcing criminal law, the criminal court judge must strictly adhere to the provisions of the law and practice the greatest rigor to ensure that the behavior of which the defendant is accused is a specific type of crime, so as to ensure that the accused is not punished for acts that are 181 not punishable under the legal system. 228. As for the risks created by imprecision in the description of crimes, the Inter-American Court noted 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 punishing the latter with 182 penalties that severely affect fundamental attributes such as life or freedom.” 229. In application of the above principles, the Inter-American Court has decided a number of cases by concluding that the principle of legality was violated due, for example, to the existence of descriptions of crimes that were so imprecise that the criminal behavior could qualify as one crime, but it could also qualify as another 183 crime. The Court drew special attention to the problems created by ambiguities of this type, because what may be at stake are greater restrictions on due process guarantees depending on whether the crime is one or the 184 other; this, in turn, can dictated what penalty will be imposed. The Court also indicated that in these situations, there is no certainty as to the criminalized behaviors, the elements used to perpetrate the crimes, the objects or 185 goods against which the crimes are directed, and the effects on society. 230. The Inter-American Commission has also had occasion to assess the precision with which crimes are described, irrespective of how they are connected to other crimes. Thus, for example, in reference to the crime of injuria in Chile and Venezuela, it wrote that the description is vague and ambiguous and does not specify clearly the context where that criminal behavior would typically occur, which could lead to broad interpretations 179 IACHR, Application and arguments filed with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru; referenced in: I/A Court H.R., Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 18, 2004 Series C. No. 115, paragraph 74. 180 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. 181 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. 182 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. 183 In reference to articles 1, 2 and 3 of Decree Law No. 25.659, and Articles 2 and 3 of Decree Law No. 25.475, Articles 2 and 3, which describe the crimes of treason and terrorism, respectively, in Peru; there is no way to distinguish when a person is committing one crime, and when he is committing the other. See. I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, paragraph 153; I/A Court H.R., Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, paragraph119. 184 I/A Court H.R., Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, paragraph 119; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, paragraphs 119. 185 I/A Court H.R., Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, paragraph 117.