X OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 189. Therefore, THE COURT DECIDES, Unanimously, 1. To dismiss the preliminary objection filed by the State regarding the Court’s alleged inability to hear the alleged violation of Article 8(4) of the American Convention on Human Rights, under the terms of paragraphs 23 to 28 of this Judgment. DECLARES, Unanimously that: 1. It is not appropriate to rule on the alleged violations of Articles 8(2)(c), 8(2)(d), 8(2)(e), 25(2)(a) and 25(2)(b) of the American Convention, under the terms of paragraph 85 of this Judgment. 2. The State is responsible for the violation of the right to appeal the judgment, enshrined in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Oscar Alberto Mohamed, under the terms of paragraphs 86 to 117 of this Judgment. 3. It is not appropriate to rule on the alleged violations of Articles 8(1), 8(2)(c), and 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, under the terms of paragraphs 118 and 119 of this Judgment. 4. The State did not violate the right enshrined in Article 8(4) of the American Convention on Human Rights, under the terms of paragraphs 120 to 126 of this Judgment. By four votes in favor and two against, that 5. It does not consider it appropriate to determine whether there was a violation of the principle of legality (freedom from ex post facto laws), enshrined in Article 9 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Oscar Alberto Mohamed, under the terms of paragraphs 130 to 139 of this Judgment. AND ORDERS Unanimously, that: 1. This Judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation. 50