27 72. The “Report of the Committee to Study and Review Legislation Enacted since April 5, 1992,” 57 a committee created on December 4, 2000, states the following: The anti-terrorist laws and laws regulating the special terrorism issue repeatedly violate basic, constitutionally protected rights and principles. These laws also violate international human rights treaties to which Peru is party. Those principles and rights are directly related to due process, the principle of legality, socialization of those convicted and respect for the independence of the Administration of Justice. 73. It bears repeating that in light of the general obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention, States Parties are obliged to take all measures to ensure that no one is deprived of judicial protection and the exercise of the right to a simple and effective recourse, in the terms of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention.58 Accordingly, States Parties to the Convention that adopt laws that disregard those guarantees are violating those articles of the Convention. 74. In the judgment on the merits in the present case, the Court held that “the provisions contained in the emergency legislation adopted by the State to combat terrorism, and in particular Decree Laws No. 25,475 and 25,659,” violate Article 2 of the Convention. Based on that decision, in the present reparations phase (supra paragraph 64 c)) the victim’s representatives requested that the State be ordered to adopt the domestic legal measures necessary to adapt its anti-terrorism laws to the Convention and that the Court declare that these decree laws have no legal effects. 75. Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides was prosecuted under Decrees Laws Nos. 25,475 and 25,659, convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison for the crime of terrorism, in a judgment of October 6, 1995, delivered by Peru’s Supreme Court. He was pardoned under Executive Order No. 078-97-JUS of June 24, 1997, whose consideranda stated the following in this regard: […] That under Law No. 26,655 an Ad Hoc Committee was created to evaluate, qualify and propose to the President of the Republic, as an exceptional measure, the granting of presidential pardons to those who stand convicted of crimes of terrorism and treason based on evidence so flimsy that the Committee may reasonably presume that the persons in question may have had no link to terrorist elements, activities or organizations, and That inasmuch as the application of Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides falls within the scope of Article 1 of Law No. 26,655, the members of that Ad Hoc Committee have unanimously recommended that Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides be granted a pardon. 76. The Court is aware that Decree Laws Nos. 25,475 and 25,659 have been amended. However, the Court need not examine the nature of the amendment to establish whether the new provisions conform to the American Convention, since, as will be shown in the following paragraphs, neither those Decree Laws nor the laws amending them in any way affect the juridical situation of Mr. Cantoral Benavides. 77. It is self-evident to this Court that the verdict of conviction that the Supreme Court delivered against Mr. Cantoral Benavides and the other decisions adopted in the proceedings to which he was subjected, were rendered on the basis of a law that 57 That Committee was created by Executive Order No. 281-2000-JUS, of December 4, 2000. Cf. Cesti Hurtado Case. Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 66; Barrios Altos Case. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, paragraph 43; and Ivcher Bronstein Case. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, paragraphs 134 and 135. 58