23 charged with terrorism, which was a usual practice used by the DINCOTE; and introduced gradual modifications to the penitentiary system in connection with inmates convicted of terrorism and high treason. Furthermore, in late 1997, “faceless” courts were eradicated and a regular court system was set up in order to try these crimes, with the creation of the Superior Corporate Court for Terrorism (Sala Superior Corporativa para Casos de Terrorismo). The most important features were the “ethereal and vague” description of the crime of terrorism; the new system of penalties; the extension of police powers beyond the control of judicial authorities or prosecutors; the modifications to procedures such as the cut-down on the powers of the Public Prosecutor’s Office; the obligation imposed on criminal judges obligation to report crimes and initiate proceedings in all cases of terrorism; the imposition of summary proceedings; and a judicial system administered through “faceless” courts. The DINCOTE was a specialized unit reporting to the Peruvian National Police, responsible for investigating events related to terrorism and the individuals involved with these events. The police not only investigated the facts, directed the investigations, was the prosecutor’s de facto superior in command, and extended the terms to conduct the investigation, but also reached conclusions regarding the investigation and determined the criminal classification applicable to the allegedly committed offense. These powers were not properly controlled or supervised by the Public Prosecutor’s Office or by the Judiciary, especially in times of “faceless” judges. The Public Prosecutor’s Office grew down to be in charge of the formalities of the investigation, which distorted its constitutional powers. On January 3, 2003, the Constitutional Court passed judgment holding that in the cases of the basic criminal description of terrorism contemplated in Article 2 of Decree-Law No. 25.475, a new interpretation was to be made of the crime of terrorism, in the sense that the perpetrator’s intent must be a requirement for the commission of said act, without this reinterpretation implying the unconstitutionality of the foregoing Article 2. The judgment passed by the Constitutional Court triggered the enactment of a number of Legislative Decrees. Among these was Legislative Decree No. 926, which ordered the annulment of the proceedings started on the grounds of terrorism before ordinary courts administered by “faceless” judges and prosecutors and of the proceedings started on the grounds of terrorism in which the parties were denied the possibility of making use of the challenges provided for in Article 13(h) of Decree-Law No. 25.475, and which also introduced the possibility to declare the unsustainability of the charges brought by the Superior Criminal Prosecutor’s Office. It further established the standardization of proceedings, replacing the procedural rules of Decree-Law No. 25.475 with Peruvian ordinary procedural criminal rules. Furthermore, Legislative Decree No. 926 of February 2003 established a sixty-day term for the National Chamber for Terrorism (Sala Nacional de Terrorismo) to declare the above-mentioned annulment. Upon the annulment of judgment and trial, and once the charges brought by the Superior Prosecutor had been declared unsustainable, the files would be immediately forwarded to the Superior Criminal