8 A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 45. The Inter-American Commission provided documentary evidence when submitting its application brief (supra paras. 1 and 12).5 46. The alleged victim’s representatives provided documentary evidence when forwarding their brief with requests and arguments (supra para. 17).6 47. The State provided documentary evidence when submitting its brief answering the application and with comments on the brief with requests and arguments (supra para. 18).7 48. On December 19, 2003, the alleged victim’s representatives forwarded documentation “originating after the presentation of the brief” with requests and arguments (supra para. 19).8 49. On June 4 and 7, 2004, the alleged victim’s representatives forwarded the sworn statements made before notary public (affidavits) of José Daniel Rodríguez Robinson and Mario Pablo Rodríguez Hurtado, respectively (supra para. 24), as required by the President in an order of May 19, 2004 (supra para. 23).9 The Court will now summarize the relevant parts of these statements: a. Expert report of José Daniel Rodríguez Robinson, lawyer Legislative Decree No. 635 of April 3, 1991, adopted the Peruvian Penal Code (hereinafter “the 1991 Penal Code”), which derogated the previous Code on this matter; its Title XIV, entitled “Offences against the public peace,” included Chapter II on the different categories of terrorism. This anti-terrorist legislation related to a dangerous crime; namely, one punishable due merely to a potential damage to a protected interest, without requiring the materialization of a concrete result. The basic category was constituted by various alternative behaviors, which, described, in an ambiguous manner, acts that were normally executed in the course of acts of terrorism. The description in Article 319 (crime of terrorism) of the 1991 Penal Code, constituted an open type of crime that attempted to avoid leaving areas of impunity, and left it to the judge himself to define and complete the classification, by interpretation. This Penal Code included the following categories: terrorism, aggravated terrorism, collaboration, association with terrorists, and disappearance of persons. This anti-terrorist legislation did not establish maximum penalties, with the exception of the crime of association 5 Cf. file of appendixes to the application, appendixes 1-A to 35, folios 1 to 360. 6 Cf. file of appendixes to the brief with requests and arguments, appendixes 1 to 34, folios 361 to 659. 7 Cf. file of appendixes to the brief answering the application and affidavits, appendixes 1(1) to 4, folios 660 to 777. 8 Cf. file on merits, reparations, and costs, tome II, appendixes 1 to 4 to the brief presented by the alleged victim’s representatives on December 19, 2003, folios 488 to 550. 9 Cf. file of appendixes to the brief answering the application and affidavits, folios 778 to 806.