However, the law on the prevention of cybercrime, which entered into force on 3 October 2012, is criticised as being a posteriori.  However, in criminal law, ex-post sanctions are practically prohibited under Article 112-1 of the French Penal Code, except in cases where retroactive application benefits the accused person (the so-called retroactive effect in Mitius).  They are also considered unconstitutional, since the prohibition of retroactivity is set out in Article 8 of the Declaration of Human and Civil Rights, which has constitutional status under French law.  The Legal Cleansing trials, which took place after the liberation of the France in 1944, introduced the status of national indignity for Nazi collaborators in order to circumvent ex post facto law. In Canada, ex post facto criminal laws are prohibited by section 11(g) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Also under section 11(i) of the Charter, the convicted person is entitled to the lesser penalty if the sentence for a crime has varied between the time the crime is committed and the time of conviction after a conviction. Under sections 1 and 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, these rights are not absolute and may be suspended. Some of the Nazis convicted at the Nuremberg trials argued (unsuccessfully) that the international laws they were breaking were ex post-facto laws. In the United Kingdom, ex post facto laws are permitted on the basis of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Historically, all Acts of Parliament prior to 1793 were ex post facto laws, since their effective date was the first day of the session in which they were passed. This situation was corrected by the Acts of Parliament (Commencement) Act 1793. The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines categorically prohibits the adoption of an ex-post-facto law. Article III (Bill of Rights), Section 22, explicitly states: „No law or letter of subsequent infringement may be promulgated.” Ex post facto is a Latin expression that literally means „of something that was done after” and roughly translated as „after it is done” or „after the act”.
Thus, an ex-post-facto law is a law that, in a way, relates to an act that was committed before that specific law existed (usually by condemnation or punishment). Retroactive legislation to prosecute what was perceived as a grossly unethical means of tax avoidance was passed by the Fraser government in the early 1980s (see Tax Avoidance at the Bottom of the Port). Similarly, legislation retroactively criminalizing certain war crimes has been found to be constitutional (see Polyukhovich v. Commonwealth). 2041 Frank vs. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 344 (1915); Ross vs. Oregon, 227 U.S. 150, 161 (1913). However, an unforeseeable judicial extension of a criminal law to cover conduct that is not covered by the law prima facie functions as an ex post facto law if applied retroactively and, in this case, violates due process.
Bouie vs. the City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (1964). See Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977) (Application of Bouie under § 9, cl. 3). But see Splawn v.
California, 431 U.S. 595 (1977) (Bouie`s application denied). The Court itself has not always met this standard. See Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966). Finally, in Calder v. Bull, the court explicitly stated that a law that „appeases” a criminal act is only retroactive and not an ex-post-facto law.
 The researchers argued that the term refers ex post facto to civil and criminal law.  There are three categories of ex post facto laws: those „that punish as a crime a previously committed act that was innocent if committed; who make the sentence for a crime after it has been committed more incriminating; is deprived of a defence that was provided for by law at the time the offence was committed. 2040 The Bar Association addresses only legislative measures and does not affect erroneous or contradictory court decisions.2041 The Indonesian Constitution prohibits in all circumstances the conviction of citizens under retroactive laws. This was put to the test in 2004 when the conviction of Masykur Abdul Kadir, one of the Bali attackers, was overturned under retroactive counter-terrorism legislation.  A law that makes chewing gum illegal and requires the arrest of anyone who has ever chewed gum before the law even exists would be an example of an ex post facto law. Another example would be a law that commutes the sentence for reckless driving to the death penalty and stipulates that all reckless drivers currently incarcerated must be executed. The Charter prohibition applies only to criminal law. Changes to civil law in Canada can and sometimes are made retrospectively. In one example, convicted murderer Colin Thatcher was ordered to lose the proceeds of a book he had published (after being pardoned from prison) under a Saskatchewan law. Although the law was passed long after Thatcher`s conviction for murder, the courts ruled that these laws only impose civil penalties (as opposed to additional criminal penalties) and are therefore not subject to charter restrictions.
Since section 11 of the Charter is one of the sections that can be repealed under section 33 (the notwithstanding clause), Parliament could theoretically legislate retrospectively by invoking section 33. However, the federal legislature (which has the exclusive power to pass laws that can be punished for injury with two or more years in prison) has never attempted to enact a retrospective law (or other law) using section 33. Article 97 of the Norwegian Constitution prohibits the retroactive effect of a law. The prohibition applies to both criminal and civil law, but in some civil cases only the particularly unreasonable effects of retroactivity are found to be unconstitutional.  The Digesta Iustiniani (18.104.22.168.3, 20.1.22.pr2) („Justinian`s Collection”) contains the sentence of two words ex postfacto: „of a postfactum” (an act of night) or natural, „of a law subsequently adopted” […].