2 VIII. IX. X. the Constitutional Court “defined and annotated the interpretation of the prohibited conduct in the basic crime of terrorism,” adding that the said Court “safeguarded the constitutionality of this norm by defining its objective elements and the open clauses, and by establishing clarifications that are incorporated into the text of this norm,” which were intended to “provide sufficient guarantees in light of the principle of legality.” These definitions, annotations and clarifications had not been made at the time of the judgment of the National Terrorism Chamber in the Lori Berenson case, because the Constitutional Court’s judgment was handed down long after the final decision in that case. Finally, responding to the objections on this point, the judgment of the National Terrorism Chamber indicated that “when times and situations change, legislation should also gradually eliminate restrictive norms; in this situation, the courts, via the broad control entrusted to them under the [...] Constitution, should gradually cease to apply those provisions of the laws in force whose social legitimacy and constitutional grounds are no longer reasonable [...]” (paragraph 88(64)). These decisions by the State show that, in its opinion, there were shortcomings in the description of the crime of terrorism – which, as has been said above, necessarily influenced the crime of collaboration with terrorism – shortcomings that do not appear to have been overcome either in the norm applied in the Berenson case nor in the final judgment handed down. Examination of the National Terrorism Court’s judgment of June 20, 2000, does not undermine the objections raised by Ms. Berenson’s defense lawyer, but attempts to affirm that the defects in the criminal law, in light of the Peruvian Constitution, could be changed “when times and situations change” and when the norms “are no longer reasonable,” which did not appear to be the case at the date on which the said judgment was handed down. Therefore, I cannot agree with the decision of the majority of the judges of this Court stated in operative paragraph 3, which relates to Article 9 of the Convention. REGARDING ARTICLE 8 IN RELATION TO THE TRIAL AGAINST LORI BERENSON IN THE ORDINARY JURISDICTION XI. XII. XIII. 1 For the reasons I will describe below, I dissent from the Court’s decision which considered that, article 8 of the American Convention was not violated in the second trial against Ms. Berenson. Due process of law, embodied in article 8 of the American Convention, is a cornerstone of the system for the protection of human rights. It is the guarantee of all human rights, par excellence, and a requisite sine qua non for the existence of the rule of law, as the Court has insistently maintained in its case law, by stating that Article 8 contains the “series of requirements that must be observed by the procedural bodies so that a person may defend himself adequately against any act of the State that could affect his rights.”1 The Court’s role in examining the application of this provision in a criminal trial is important, because its task is to ensure that the decision taken by the national court concerning the guilt or innocence of a defendant is made For example, Ivcher Bronstein case. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74. para. 102 .