4 criminally punishable. Therefore, said phrase, by expanding the scope of Article VII of the Introductory Title of the Criminal Code to Article 2 of Decree-Law No. 25.475, shall remain the same and shall be interpreted as indicated above: “Any person who (intentionally) causes, creates or maintains a state of intimidation, alarm or fear among the population, or any segment thereof (…) (in bold in the original).” (…) 77. Based on the foregoing, the Constitutional Court finds that the language of Article 2 of Decree-Law No. 25.475 conveys a message that allows citizens to know the content of the prohibition so that they can distinguish that which is forbidden from that which is permitted. The definition of the crime is only vague in relation to the need to specify the scope of the word “acts,” which, for the purpose of giving a more accurate conceptual definition, must be understood as illicit acts (in bold in the original). 78. Consequently, Article 2 of Decree-Law No. 25.475 shall retain the existing language, which shall be interpreted in accordance with the foregoing paragraphs of this decision (…) 78bis. Finally, the Constitutional Court must point out that the crime defined in Article 2 of Decree-Law No. 25.475 requires the concurrence of the three elements contained therein, in addition to the offender’s intent. In effect, as described above, Article 2 sets out the definition of a crime that contains three objective elements, which must necessarily concur for the crime of terrorism to be committed. Where one of these elements is missing, the conduct under review will fall outside the scope of the definition of the crime.” Significant recognition of the interpretation of the law in force in Peru in the trial of cases involving crimes of terrorism by ordinary courts VII. It should be noted that the interpretation of the law in force in Peru offered by human rights experts recognizes the significant progress achieved in the exercise of the ius puniendi by the State as a result of the contribution made by the Constitutional Court’s decision referred to above. In this regard, the Ombudsman’s Office has made reference to: “1. (…) Democratic criminal law, which implies respect for the criminal provisions set forth in the Constitution, the standards set by international human rights instruments, and compliance with the recommendations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, (as well as) with the judgments rendered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court (bracketed text added for the purpose of style).”