16 of collaboration with terrorism. The norm then defines six categories of conduct that it identifies as “acts of collaboration”; these are: a. Providing documents and information on individuals and property, facilities, public and private buildings and any other that specifically contributes to or facilitates the activities of terrorist elements or groups. b. The cession or use of any type of accommodation or other means which could be used to hide individuals or serve as a deposit for weapons, explosives, propaganda, provisions, medicines, and other belongings related to terrorist groups or their victiMrs. c. The intentional transfer of individuals belonging to terrorist groups or linked to their criminal activities, and also the provision of any kind of assistance that helps them escape. d. The organization of courses, or the management of centers of indoctrination and training for terrorist groups, operating under any cover. e. The manufacture, acquisition, possession, theft, storage or supply of weapons, ammunition, explosive, asphyxiant, inflammable, toxic or other substances or objects that could cause death or injury. An aggravating circumstance is the possession and hiding of weapons, ammunition or explosives belonging to the Armed Forces and the Peruvian National Police. f. Any form of financial activity, help or mediation carried out voluntarily in order to finance the activities of terrorist elements or groups. Article 5.- Affiliation to a terrorist organization Those that are part of a terrorist association, for the mere fact of belonging to it, shall be punished, with a sentence of prison of no less than twenty years and later disqualification for the term established in the sentence. 45. In the Judgment issued in the present case, the Court pointed out that “Article 4 of Decree Law No. 25475, under which Mrs. De La Cruz Flores was convicted, defines acts of collaboration with terrorism as a crime and not membership in an organization that may be considered a terrorist group, nor does it establish the obligation to report possible terrorist acts” and however, it was those two acts that gave rise to the criminal liability of the victim in the judgment of November 21, 1996.23 46. Nevertheless, regarding the crime of “collaboration with terrorism,” regulated on Article 4 of the Legislative Decree No. 25475, the Judgment issued by the Court in the case of Lori Berenson established that such definition of the crime is incompatible with Article 9 of the American Convention.24 Likewise, in the Judgment of the case García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, such position was reiterated regarding the conformity of the definition of the crime of “collaboration with terrorism” with Article 9 of the American Convention, extending such criterion for the definition of the crime of “membership or affiliation to a terrorist organization,” contained on Article 5 of the Decree Law No. 25475. Regarding both definitions of the crime, the Tribunal concluded that “that they set forth the elements of the criminalized conduct, differentiating it from acts which are either not punishable or punishable with non-criminal sanctions, and which do not infringe other provisions of the Convention.”25 47. The Tribunal observed that the second process of prosecutorial charge initiated on September 29, 2003, was for the crime of terrorism in the modality of “acts of collaboration.” However, on December 2004, the instruction was extended to include also the crime of “affiliation to a terrorist organization,” defined in the second process Article 5 of the Decree Law No. 25,475.26 After the filing of a recourse by the defense, on July 18, 2005, the Third Superior Prosecutor’s Office Specialized in crimes of Terrorism, 23 Cf. Case of De la Cruz Flores, supra note 5, par. 88. Cf. Case of Lori Berenson Mejía V. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, paras. 127 and 128. 25 Cf. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, supra note 18, par. 195. 26 Report No. 216-1º FSPN-MP/FN of the First Superior Criminal National Prosecutor General’s Office of December 20, 2004 (Case File Accumulated No. 88-04 and No. 673-93), which consist of four “fojas”. (pages 374-377, Book V, Supervision of Compliance with the Judgment) 24