Legislative Decree No. 957 of July 22, 2004” came into force. In addition, it stated that “the Special Multisectoral Commission charged with Incorporation of International Antiterrorist Regulations (CEMINATI for its Spanish acronym) […] issued Report No. 0832006-JUS of […] March 14, 2006, containing a set of legislative proposals to be incorporated into the national legal system.” 7. In the report of June 23, 2011, the Peruvian State asserted that the newly adopted legislation reflects “the guidelines established in International Human Rights Law for conducting trials in accordance with international standards of justice.” Specifically, the State reported that the following measures have been adopted: i) “[t]he creation of an Ad-Hoc Commission to seek pardons in cases involving persons unjustly imprisoned for terrorism and treason”; ii) “[t]he repeal of trials by faceless judges through Law No. 26671 in October 1996”. Likewise, it held that “the recommendations made by the InterAmerican System were adopted by the State […] in a progressive manner.” An example of this is “the consolidation of the National Criminal Court as a judicial body with national jurisdiction [that considers] cases of actions of a terrorist nature regardless of where these are committed, and coordinates trials for terrorism at the national level in the Court[s] of Justice [that examine] these types of cases. 8. Similarly, the State reported that the Constitutional Court, in its Judgment of January 3, 2003, declared unconstitutional: i) Articles 7, 12(d), 13(h), and 20 of Decree Law No. 25475; ii) the phrase “treason against the nation” in Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 of Decree Law No. 25659; iii) Articles 1, 2, and 3 of Decree Law No. 25708; iv) Articles 1 and 2 of Decree Law No. 25880, and iv) Articles 2, 3, and 4 of Decree Law No. 25744. Specifically, the Constitutional Court established that “the regulations described […] violated [the] principle of legality, judicial guarantees, judicial protection, [the right to personal] liberty [and personal] integrity] enshrined in the American Convention [on] Human Rights.” Furthermore, the State reported that “Legislative Decrees No. 921 to 927 were issued,” which amended the “antiterrorism” legislation. In this regard, the State pointed out that these regulations “incorporate the legal standards set out by the Constitutional Court in the judgment [in this case].” 9. The representative of the victim indicated that “in 2007, a number of new Supreme Decrees introduced stiffer penalties and conditions for persons detained for the crime of terrorism[, for which reason] persons acquitted by faceless tribunals in the military or civil courts, were arrested once again in order to face new trials that lasted many months.” The representative also described the law issued on October 1, 2009, “which repealed L[egislative] Decree [No.] 927 as “a setback for the enforcement of human rights,” given that Legislative Decree No. 927 had sought to “adapt the Criminal Code to international standards that promote prison reform, rehabilitation through conditional parole and the reduction of prison sentences through study and work, and reinsertion into society for those deprived of [their] liberty for crimes related to terrorism.” The representative added that “this law could negatively impact all persons deprived of liberty, and in this case, particularly [Mrs.] Berenson.” 10. The Commission stated that “in other cases concerning Peru […], it has recognized that the judgment of the Peruvian Constitutional Court of January 3, 2003, […] and Legislative Decrees No. 921 to 927 of January and February 2003, which modified various aspects of the legislation in question, constitute significant measures aimed at implementing the orders of the Court.” Nevertheless, the Commission indicated that “it will continue to assess and monitor the object of this obligation in the timely performance of its powers under the Convention.” 3