Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
120 S.Ct. 1362; Morales. The Supreme Court has, however, noted that the question is a matter of degree and indicated that the party challenging the law has the burden of “establishing that the measure of punishment itself has changed.” Morales, 514 U.S. at 510, n. 6, 115 S.Ct. 1597; Garner, 529 U.S. at 255, 120 S.Ct. 1362; see also Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 293-294, 97 S.Ct. 2290, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977) (refusing to accept “speculation” that the effective punishment under a new statutory scheme would be “more onerous” than under the old one). Therefore, given the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on this issue in Morales and Garner, it is now clear that retro active changes in the laws governing parole may violate the ex post facto clause. Morales, 514 U.S. at 509, 115 S.Ct. 1597 ; Garner, 529 U.S. at 256, 120 S.Ct. 1362
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the application of change in law regarding the timetable for being eligible for parole board hearings was not an increase in punishment violative of the ex post facto clause
B. holding that parole guidelines are subject to the ex post facto clause
C. holding change in ultimate parole decisionmaker from board to governor does not violate ex post facto clause
D. holding that a change in parole law violates the ex post facto clause if the change in the law created a sufficient risk of increasing the measure of punishment attached to the covered crimes
E. holding that a change in parole policies without altering the underlying substantive standards does not violate the ex post facto clause
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.