14 * * * 42. At the public hearing on November 22, 2000, the Court received the reports of the experts and the testimony of the witness offered by the Inter-American Commission. These statements are summarized below. B) TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE Court Testimony of Delia Revoredo Marsano, Justice of the Constitutional The Lima Bar Association filed suit challenging the constitutionality of Law 26,657 or the Authentic Interpretation of Article 112 of the Constitution (hereinafter “Interpretation Law”). This action followed the normal procedure; in other words, the President delivered the file to the full Constitutional Court so that it could be examined by one of the justices (the rapporteur), who in this case was Justice Guillermo Rey Terry. After examining the file, the Constitutional Court agreed to hear the suit on unconstitutionality on September 23, 1996, and on December 27 that year, Justice Rey Terry submitted his working paper on the merits of the issue to the full Court. The working paper stated that the Interpretation Law was not a law for general application, but referred to the specific case of President Fujimori, who had been President before and after the entry into force of the 1993 Constitution. Accordingly, if he ran for a third presidential mandate, he would violate the provisions of Article 112 of the Constitution. In Justice Rey Terry’s working paper, the Constitutional Court, using its oversight authority, declared that this norm was not applicable to President Fujimori and, consequently, prohibited him from presenting his candidacy for the 2000 elections. It indicated that five of the justices were “convinced that it was unconstitutional” with erga omnes effects; however, they could not state this because, according to the Court’s statute, the votes of six of the seven justices who composed the Constitutional Court were needed in order to declare a law unconstitutional. They therefore opted to declare that the law was non-applicable, which only required a decision by a simple majority and had effect in the specific case. Either declaration - that the law was unconstitutional or that it was non-applicable - would have had the same effect in the concrete case; that is, President Fujimori would be unable to run for a third term; thus the essence of the Constitution would be protected. On December 27, 1996, the Court adopted this working paper by five votes to two. Justices García Marcelo and Acosta Sánchez, who were not in agreement, resolved to deliver their individual opinions, with the respective reasoning, as soon as possible, so that the judgment could be published and notified. The same evening, television’s Channel 4 broadcast the content of the working paper. From then on, the Constitutional Court justices began to be pressured by politicians and the media, among others, and, in a letter to the Court, 40 members of Congress went so far as to demand that they not make that decision. On December 28, 1996, the two justices who had said they would give individual opinions stated in a press communiqué that the Constitutional Court had not had quorum, “that the full Court had not been present, that the working paper had not