15 been presented, that it had not been discussed and much less [...] voted on”. The same day, after a discussion on the content of the draft judgment between Justices García Marcelo and Rey Terry, the former acknowledged that he had taken the latter’s working paper and handed it to the police and that the justices who supported the draft would suffer “the consequences of that document.” As a result of Justice García Marcelo’s conduct, the full Constitutional Court discussed and adopted a vote of censure against him. On January 2, 1997, Justices Nugent and Díaz Valverde requested another vote on the case. In response, the other justices declared that there was already a tacit agreement and it only remained for the justices with dissenting opinions to incorporate these to the body of the judgment so that it could be notified and published. However, the majority of the justices, in other words, Nugent, Díaz Valverde, Acosta Sánchez and García Marcelo, voted in favor of conducting another vote, arguing that the case could be reconsidered if it had not been notified or published. During this “second vote”, Justices Nugent and Díaz Valverde withdrew their votes, indicating that they had already expressed their opinions in their university department; Justices Acosta Sánchez and García Marcelo abstained from voting, and the three alleged victims in this case voted as they had before that the Interpretation Law was non-applicable. According to the Constitutional Court’s statute, a simple majority of the votes emitted is required to declare nonapplicability. Thus, the judgment that declared it impossible for President Fujimori to run for the presidency in 2000 was adopted by the votes in favor of the three victims and with the abstention of the remaining justices. Based on a request by the parliamentary opposition and on the witness’s complaint, the full Congress set up a committee to investigate the removal of the Constitutional Court’s electronic files and documents, and also a series of threats and harassments to which the witness was being subjected. This Investigation Committee was expressly barred from examining matters related to the jurisdictional work of the Constitutional Court. The three alleged victims in this case were summoned by the Investigation Committee, chaired by Deputy Martha Hildebrandt, and their statements before the Committee related to “the removal of documents from hard disks and [the] complaints” of the witness. Subsequently, the Committee heard the statement of Justice García Marcelo, who denounced Justices Aguirre Roca, Rey Terry and the witness for “usurping functions [of the] Court”, by emitting the consent of the full Court. The three alleged victims were not summoned again, and it was Justice Nugent, in a later statement, who tried to explain to the Hildebrandt Committee how the interpretation of a judgment functioned, and also that an agreement of the full Court existed, stating that the justices who interpreted judgments were the same as those who delivered them. However, the Hildebrandt Committee decided to denounce Justices Aguirre Roca and Rey Terry and the witness, and they were dismissed. Finally, she indicated that she and her husband had been subjected to intimidation and harassment by various agents of the State following the delivery of the judgment on the Interpretation Law and its corresponding clarification. She indicated that, among other actions, two of their pick-up trucks had been assaulted, their telephones had been intercepted by the National Intelligence Service and two