22 case is similar to this case, and contrary to the Commission’s conclusion, the Human Rights Committee considered that the elements of the crime existed prior to the facts and were thus foreseeable. B.2 Temporal application of the regulations governing procedure. 66. Below, the Court will assess the temporal application of the regulations governing procedure, in order to determine the purpose and scope for this case. It is important to note that in this case, prior to IPOHA which implemented Article 140 of the Constitution, there was no other law on the matter, thereby creating a normative gap, and thus an interpretation of the more favorable criminal regulation does not apply. 67. In regard to the application of regulations governing procedure, the Court notes that there is a tendency in the region to immediately apply the regulation (principle of tempus regit actum). That is to say, that the procedural regulation be applied as of its entry into force,80 and in some countries, the exception is the application of the principle of the most favorable procedural regulation for the defendant.81 eliminated, rather the evidence was inadmissible. The Committee considered that in some cases, the changes in the rules of procedure and evidence may be relevant to the determination of the applicability of Article 15, “especially if such changes affect the nature of an offense.” In the Committee's view, however, all elements of the offense in question existed at the time of the offense. Thus, it decided that there was no violation of Article 15 of the Covenant. 80 In this sense and in a general manner, in States such as Mexico, Brazil, Costa Rica, Peru and the United States, as a general rule, norms are applied that regulate procedure in an immediate manner. In Mexico, case law has understood that in the case of procedural provisions, these are made up of acts that did not occur in a single moment; that are governed by rules in force at the time of their application, which grant legal possibility and empower the governed to participate in each of the stages of the judicial process. It follows that there cannot be retroactivity, since, if before a stage is carried out, the legislature amended the procedure, broadening a term, suppressing a recourse or modyfing the assessment of the evidence, such powers are not amended, are not affected, and therefore, the parties are not deprived of a power which they initially had within their reach. Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (Mexico), Second Chamber, Thesis: 2a. XLIX/2009, Judicial Seminar of the Federation and its Gazette: Tome XXIX, May 2009, Ninth, p. 273, Isolated Thesis (Common). PROCEDURAL NORMS IN FORCE ARE APPLICABLE AT THE TIME THE RELATED ACTION IS CARRIED OUT, TO WHICH A RETROACTIVE APPLICATION CANNOT BE CLAIMED, available at en: http://sjf.scjn.gob.mx/sjfsist/Paginas/DetalleGeneralV2.aspx?Epoca=1e3e1fcfc000000&Apendice=100000000000& Expresion=NORMAS%2520PROCESALES.%2520SON%2520APLICABLES%2520LAS%2520VIGENTES&Dominio=Rub ro,Texto,Precedentes,Localizacion&TA_TJ=2&Orden=1&Clase=DetalleTesisBL&NumTE=4&Epp=20&Desde=100&Hst a=100&Index=0&ID=167230&Hit=3&IDs=2005282,161960,167230,173248&tipoTesis=&Semanario=0&tabla=; Collegiate Circuit Tribunal. THESIS VI.2º J/140. Judicial Seminar of the Federation and its Gazette: Tome VIII, July 1998, Ninth, p. 308, Jurisprudence (Penal). RETROACTIVITY OF PROCEDURAL LAWS. NON-EXISTENCE OF A GENERAL NORM. Available at: http://sjf.scjn.gob.mx/sjfsist/Paginas/DetalleGeneralV2.aspx?ID=195906&Clase=DetalleTesisBL. In regard to Brazil, see Article 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Decree-Law Nº 3.689 of October 3, 1941, available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto-lei/del3689.htm, and see “Agravo de Instrumento em Recurso Especial”, ante el Superior Tribunal de Justiça. AgRg no Recurso Especial No. 1.288.971 - SP (2011/0256261-9), inter alia, April 14, 2013 (Case of Nardoni). In regard to Costa Rica see Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Costa Rica, September 2, 2009, available at: http://sitios.poderjudicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional/Constitucion%20Politica/Sentencias/2009/09-14108.html. In regard to Perú, see Judgments of the the Constitutional Court, Inconstitutionality Proceeding, Exp. No. 0002-2006PI/TC, Judgment of May 16, 2007; Hábeas Corpus Remedy, Binding Precedent, Exp. N.° 2496-2005-PHC/TC, Judgment of May 17, 2005: Hábeas Corpus Remedy, Exp. No. 1805-2005-HC/TC, Judgment of April 29, 2005; Hábeas Corpus Remedy, Exp. No. 02861-2008-PHC/TC, Judgment of September 15, 2008; Hábeas Corpus Remedy, Exp. N.° 05786-2007-PHC/TC, Judgment of September 24, 2009, and Hábeas Corpus Remedy, Exp. N.° 03754-2012-PHC/TC, Judgment of January 7, 2013, available at: http://www.tc.gob.pe. In regard to the United States of America, see United States Supreme Court, Dobbert V. Florida, 432 U.S. 282 (1977), June 17, 1977, and Lindsey V. Washington, 301 U.S 397 (1937), May 17, 1937. 81 In this sense, see for example, Colombia, Argentina, Chile, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, Venezuela and Uruguay governs the immediate application of the procedural norm with the exception of the retroactive application of the more lenient standard referring to either the substantive or procedural norm. In particular, in Colombia the general rule is the immediate application of the adjective norm, with the exception of the procedural actions that