Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Clause is to ascertain whether the law has retrospective effect. In the context of the present case, the question is whether the amended statute applies to prisoners convicted for offenses committed before the provision’s effective date. See Weaver, 450 U.S. at 31, 101 S.Ct. at 965, 67 L.Ed.2d at 24. Clearly, it does. The DOC has implemented a policy making any inmate required to participate in the SOTP who refuses treatment, is removed from treatment, or fails to meet program completion criteria ineligible for earned time. Therefore, the amended statute applies to prisoners such as Propp who were convicted for an offense committed before the amendment’s effective date. The amendment is, therefore, retrospective. See Stansbury v. Hannigan, 265 Kan. 404, 960 P.2d 227, 235-36 (1998) . The State argues this conclusion is
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding similar statutory amendment was retrospective when applied to inmate who committed his crime before amendments enactment
B. holding the crime of conspiracy is committed or not before the substantive crime begins
C. holding that a change of an element of an offense could not be applied retroactively to a crime committed prior to the statutes enactment
D. holding that aedpa amendments to  2254 apply only to such cases as were filed after the statutes enactment
E. holding similar statutory amendment violated ex post facto clause when applied to inmate who committed his crime before enactment of amendment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.