71 the crime of treason and aligned this type of crime with that of terrorism, until it was even assimilated with the latter.224 The similarity or identical nature of typical elements meant that conducts which could fall within the description of terrorism could also be considered treason, with the evident result that they could be heard by the military authorities, in summary proceedings, without guarantees, before “faceless” judges; thus, excluding them from the ordinary jurisdiction which heard cases of terrorism.225 118. In this regard, the Court has stated that “[b]oth Decree Laws (25,475 and 25,659) refer[red] to conducts that were not strictly defined, so that they may be interpreted similarly for both crimes, in the view of the Ministry of the Interior and the corresponding judges [...] and ‘of the Police [DINCOTE] themselves.’”226 119. Consequently, as the Court has stated: The fact that both have certain elements in common and the vague distinction between the two categories of crime is prejudicial to the defendant’s legal situation on several counts: the applicable penalty, the court with jurisdiction, and the nature of the proceedings. Under Peruvian law, this criminal conduct is classified as treason and persons charged with this crime w[ould] be tried by a ‘faceless’ military tribunal. The trials w[ould] be summary proceedings in which the defendant w[ould] have fewer guarantees and, if convicted, w[ould] be sentenced to life imprisonment.227 120. The judgment convicting Lori Berenson handed down by the military court for the crime of treason and the other decisions adopted in this jurisdiction were based on legislation that was incompatible with the American Convention. 121. For the above reasons, the Court considers that the State violated Article 9 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Lori Berenson, by applying the procedural provisions of Decree Law No. 25,475 and the substantive provisions of Decree Law 25,659, which are incompatible with the Convention, in the investigation and the hearing of the trial by the military court. 122. The Court notes that, following the conclusion of Lori Berenson’s trial in the civil jurisdiction, several principles mentioned in the preceding paragraphs concerning the applicable penalty, the court that should try the case, and the corresponding procedure, have been modified by the declaration of the unconstitutionality of the category of the crime of treason in the judgment handed down by the Constitutional Court of Peru on January 3, 2003 (supra para. 88(7)). 123. This Court observes that this judgment of the State’s Constitutional Court decided that the definition of the crime of terrorism was in keeping with the Peruvian Constitution. 224 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 25, paras. 155 and 156; and Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al., supra note 25, para. 119. 225 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 25, para. 156; and Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al., supra note 25, para. 119. 226 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 25, para. 153; Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al., supra note 25, para. 119; and Case of Loayza Tamayo, supra note 25, para. 68. 227 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al., supra note 25, para. 119.