A) Regarding the obligation to adopt the appropriate measures to reform the norms that have been declared in violation of the American Convention in the judgment, and to ensure the enjoyment of the rights embodied in the American Convention to all persons subject to its jurisdiction, without any exception (Operative paragraph fourteen of the judgment) i) Information and observations made by the parties 6. In the reports presented in 2002, the State referred to the following measures adopted in partial compliance with this obligation: a) enactment of Law No. 27.486, promulgated on June 22, 2001, which “substantially modifie[d] the situation of all those charged with the crime of terrorism, establishing that, exceptionally, the competent jurisdictional organs for cases of terrorism could modify the order of detention, regarding the summons to appear, in the case of all those who have been charged with this crime”; b) approval of the International Convention for the Suppression of Financing for Terrorism and the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, by legislative decisions Nos. 27.544 and 27.549 published in 2001; c) enactment of Law No. 27.569 published in 2001, “Law establishing new pre-trial and trial proceedings for those prosecuted and sentenced under Legislative Decrees Nos. 895 [Law against aggravated terrorism] and 897 [Law on special proceedings for the investigation and prosecution of the aggravated crimes defined in Legislative Decree No. 896],” a law that derogated the decrees, and d) elaboration of bills pending enactment that provide for amendments to the anti-terrorist laws in order to adapt them to the relevant international treaties. The State also advised that, on January 3, 2003, the Peruvian Constitutional Court handed down a judgment ordering “a series of actions to modify some aspects of Decree Laws Nos. 25.475, 25.659, 25.708, and 25.880, together with their complementary and connected norms,” all of them related to the proceedings for crimes of terrorism.” In its most recent brief of June 10, 2011, the State alluded to the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence on prison regime benefits for those convicted of terrorism. 4 7. In their brief of October 31, 2002, the representatives indicated that the derogation of Legislative Decrees Nos. 895 and 897 and the enactment of Law 27.569 “bear no relationship to compliance with the [J]udgment, […] because they refer to common crimes committed by armed gangs, which former President Fujimori’s Government […] equated with a type of special terrorism.” According to the representatives, “[t]he other legal reforms described are in the preliminary stages of examination by Special Committees” and, consequently, “it is not possible to advance an opinion.” On October 23, 2009, the representatives reported on: a) the enactment of a law on October 12, 2009, that “[would] annul the prison regime benefits for those convicted” of the crime of terrorism and would be to the detriment of Mr. Castillo Petruzzi, and b) “transfers of individuals convicted of […] terrorism to maximum security prisons,” which would also be to the detriment of Mr. Castillo Petruzzi. According to the representatives, this measure is serious, because “it means that [Mr. Castillo Petruzzi] returns to the system of visits by means of a visiting room, as well as other strict limitations that he had left behind.” The representatives indicated that the National Penitentiary Institute “ha[d] indicated that the transfer was not due to any type of punishment, but was carried out in the context of domestic provisions to avoid overcrowding,” and that “another relocation was possible.” 4 According to the information provided by the State, of the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of Peru in the judgments Nos. 1593-2003-HC/TC, 00033-2007-PI/TC, and 04166-2010-HC, it is possible to conclude that “the end goal of the punishment (resocialization) established in the Constitution have not been emptied of content because despite the limited benefits[,] the prison treatment grants the group of persons charged with terrorism] other resocialization measures and also other prison benefits.” (case file of monitoring of compliance, tome VI, folio 2562). 3