PENAL CODE of the Democratic Republic of Timor Leste The principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law forbids retroactive application of criminal law, except in cases where the same is concretely demonstrated to be more lenient to the accused. This is also correlated with the principle of legality. The principle of humanity, in turn, enshrined in articles 29 and 32 of the Constitution, is the guiding principle upon which is based the prohibition against applying the death penalty as well as ordering penalties or security measures of a perpetual nature or of unlimited or indefinite duration. The guiding principles for selecting the rules that form this present Code are those of need, proportionality and suitability, and form the foundation for applying each penalty or security measure. The aim is always the protection of legal interests essential to life in society and the social reintegration of the offender. The principle of culpability has been followed, as an assumption for applying penalties, ensuring that there can be no penalty without guilt (nulla poena sine culpa). This principle places a form of limitation on the power of the State, insofar as the measure of punishment can never exceed the measure of guilt. The principle of guilt or culpability is also reflected in the treatment given to errors regarding unlawfulness, providing exemption from criminal liability due to age or if any psychological disturbance is confirmed, which diminishes criminal liability of the perpetrator due to lack of culpability. With regards to legal consequences of punishable acts, observe that penalties are always executed as a teaching or re-socializing tool, with different means of applying sanctions presented in the Code that do not involve institutionalization. Whenever either a liberty-depriving or non-liberty depriving penalty is alternatively applicable, the court must give preference to the non-liberty depriving penalty, whenever this adequately and sufficiently fulfils the purpose of the punishment and meets the requirements for reproving and preventing crime (article 62). Therefore alternative penalties are given pre-eminence, particularly in situations of petty or less serious crimes. Specifically, penalties such as fines and community service have been enshrined as means to best ensure intended social reintegration of the offender. Penalties of fines are set in days, thus enabling them to better adapt to the guilt of the perpetrator and his or her economic and financial conditions, varying the amount set for each day of fine according to the economic and financial status of the convict and his or her personal expenses. On the other hand, different rules for converting fines into days of imprisonment are established in the event of failure to pay fines, in order to differentiate penalties of fines that are the primary penalty from fines that are substitution for imprisonment. Regarding community service as a sanction not involving institutional confinement, the Code took care to clarify and systematize certain fundamental aspects of this option, leaving its further development and concrete application to an autonomous law. 4