duplicity of the content,” “thus enabling the same fact or element to be subsumed under any of the criminal codifications” and “thereby affect[ing] the principle of legality.” 30. Likewise, the Court also notes that in the judgment of the Constitutional Court of 2003, the subsistence was declared of Article 2 of Decree Law No. 25475 on the crime of terrorism, with the same text, if it is interpreted that the action must be carried out “intentionally,” as there is a reasonable uncertainty and the analogical interpretation clauses do not violate the principle of lex certa when the legislature establishes the examples that can serve as parameters for interpretation. 10 31. Furthermore, regarding the guarantee to a competent tribunal, in the Judgment on the merits of the case, the Court noted that Decree Law No. 25.659 and No. 25.475 divided the jurisdiction between the military and ordinary [civil] courts, even to try civilians, attributing jurisdiction for crimes of treason to the former and of terrorism to the latter.11 Regarding the crime of treason, prosecution was to be done by “faceless” judges, in a summary procedure and with diminished guarantees. In this regard, the Constitutional Court of Peru considered Article 4 of Decree Law No. 25659 on treason, unconstitutional, and it stressed the creation of “Law No. 26.671 [which] repeal[ed], implicitly, both Article 15 [of Decree Law No. 25475] as well as all those provisions, which prevented the defendant from having the opportunity to learn the identity of those involved in the proceeding.” 32. On the other hand, regarding the right to defense, in the Judgment on the merits, the Court questioned aspects related to the inability to file any protective remedy to safeguard personal liberty or to question the legality or arbitrary detention of victims (Article 6 of Decree Law No. 25659). In this regard, the Court notes that Article 6 of Decree Law No. 25659 “was modified by Decree-Law No. 26.248, adopted on November 12, 1993, and in force since the 26th of that same month and year, [...] allowing, in principle, the filing of protective remedies in favor of those charged with crimes of terrorism or treason.” 33. Moreover, in the Judgment on the merits in this case, the conditions of detention in the execution of the punishment for the crime were questioned, under Article 20 of Decree Law No. 25475, which assured the victim remained in a very small cell, without ventilation or natural light, for a half hour of sun a day, in continuous solitary confinement, and with severely restricted visitation. 12 In this regard, the judgment of the Constitutional Court of Peru established that this Article served as an unreasonable and disproportionate measure, thereby constituting cruel and inhumane treatment, which violated the Peruvian Constitution and the American Convention. Thus, the Constitutional Court considered the unconstitutionality of the phrase “continuous solitary confinement during the first year of detention and subsequently” as well as the phrase “[i]n no case, and under the 10 Thus, in accordance with the Constitutional Court “the interpretation of the clause 'against the security of (...) methods or means of communication or transport of any kind' must limit its scope to the conduct constituting the offense against public safety affecting methods or means of transportation or communication. For the same reasons, the clause 'against the security of (...) any other good or service' should be interpreted as referring only to goods or services that have specific criminal protection in different forms of crimes against public safety, under Title XII of Second Tome of the Criminal Code.” Judgment of the Constitutional Court of January 3, 2003, paras. 72 and 73 (case file of Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment, tome V, folio 1806 to 1825). 11 Case of Loayza Tamayo. Merits, Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 133, para. 61. 12 Case of Loayza Tamayo. supra note 11, para. 46, literal k). 10