49 r) The State has lost the right to prosecute the alleged victim and, consequently, if it tries her a second time for the same facts, it would violated Article 8(4) of the Convention. Arguments of the State 76. With regard to the alleged violation of Articles 9, 7 and 8 of the American Convention, the State declared as follows: a) The anti-terrorist legislation has been modified extensively, because the “faceless” tribunals have been eradicated as well as the trial of civilians by military judges, giving place to new trials with all the guarantees of due process and a democracy; b) In relation to the category of the crime of terrorism, following the judgment of the Constitutional Court of January 3, 2003, judges must use the criteria it established to interpret the crime in relation to the behavior of the defendant. A trial cannot be classified as irregular merely because the category of the crime is very open or contains very severe penalties, because the norm provides the framework of legality, and the judiciary establishes “the framework of justice”; c) By exercising a diffuse control, judges must cease to apply those provisions of the laws in force that have lost their rationale based on their social legitimacy and their support in the Constitution; d) The grounds for the judgment have been duly explained and “it can be seen clearly that the defendant has been convicted for BELONGING TO SENDERO LUMINOSO”; e) If someone has been legally sentenced in a judgment delivered by a competent court, or has been placed in preventive detention for disobeying a court order or to oblige them to appear before the competent judicial authority when there are reasonable indications that they have committed an offence, this implies that the requirements of rationality and need are being complied with, and allows abuse of authority to be avoided or controlled; f) According to the State’s criminal procedural legislation, the period of preventive detention for crimes processed under the special procedure, such as the crime of terrorism, is 15 months; however, this period may be doubled. The time is calculated until the first-instance judgment has been handed down; g) In the instant case, the judgment was delivered 7 months and 24 days after Mrs. De La Cruz Flores had been detained, so that the alleged victim’s right to liberty was not violated due to the excess duration of her detention; h) Based on Legislative Decree No. 926 and the case law of the InterAmerican Court itself, the State has declared that the alleged victim should be given a new trial, although this does not imply that she will be released; i) Mrs. De La Cruz Flores has obtained her liberty in the new criminal proceeding by using the pertinent legal instrument currently in force in Peru;