2 III. In addition, I made every effort to explain the clear role of “negative legislator” of the Constitutional Court in the European model, which has been gradually developed in Latin American constitutionalism, by means of which all norms enacted into law which, due to their spurious nature, disregard the principle of supremacy of the Constitution are set aside and removed from the legal system. However, said traditional role, which had its origin in Italian and Spanish constitutionalism but which is equally being recognized in our system, 2 has evolved to recognized, albeit exceptionally, the role of “positive legislator” of the Court, capable of endowing norms that have not been removed from the legal system with a different content, which is compatible with the constitution and more aligned with the human rights enshrined in the American Convention. IV. This is exactly the role played by the Constitutional when rendering the aforesaid decision on January 3, 2003. On that occasion, the legislative effect of the Court’s finding removed from the Peruvian legal system the most disturbing aspects of the emergency law, inter alia, the unacceptable crime of high treason over which military courts had exclusive jurisdiction; anonymous or “faceless” judges; the curtailment of the right of those accused of crimes of terrorism to resort to the courts for the protection of constitutional rights; and the inhuman punishment and prison conditions. V. However, the Constitutional Court deemed it necessary to maintain the definitions of the crimes set out in Decree-Law No. 25.475 which were compatible with the Constitution and international human rights instruments, on condition that in applying the law the authorities of the State include criteria to better delimit those definitions which, due to their very nature, may be reasonably open-ended. 3 Content of the Interpretative Decision of the Constitutional Court in relation to the basic definition of the crime under analysis in this judgment VI. For illustration purposes, it is relevant to quote some excerpts of the interpretative decision which clearly reveal its legislative purpose 8.1. Scope and extent of the nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege praevia principle (Article 2(24)(d) of the Constitution) 44. The nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege praevia principle is enshrined in Article 2(24)(d) of the Peruvian Political Constitution “no person shall be charged with or convicted of an offense in respect of any act or omission which, at the time of such act 2 See. DIAZ REVORÍO, Javier. Las Sentencias Interpretativas del Tribunal Constitucional. Significado, tipología, efectos yb legitimidad. Análisis Especial de las Sentencias Aditivas (Interpretative Decisions of the Constitutional Court. Meaning, typology, effect, and legitimacy. Special Analysis of Amendatory Decisions by way of Addition). Valladolid: Nova Lex Press, 2001; also published by Palestra Press in Peru. 3 LAMARCA; Carmen, Tratamiento Jurídico del Terrorismo (Legal Regulation of Terrorism). Madrid: Centro de Publicaciones del Ministerio de Justicia, 1985.