39 158. The Court considers that this Judgment, coupled with Judgment on the merits which found Peru responsible for human rights violations, constitute adequate reparation. * * * 159. The victim requested that the Court instruct Peru to amend Decree-Law No. 25,475 (Terrorism) and Decree-Law No. 25,659 (Treason), as necessary. 160. For its part, the Commission petitioned the Court to order that Peru amend the pertinent provisions of those Decree-Laws and, in general, adopt the domestic legal measures necessary to avoid a repetition of violations of the kind proven in the instant case. 161. The State argued that amendment of Decree-Laws No. 25,475 and No. 25,659 would have no compensatory value. It maintained that it had introduced positive changes in its terrorism-related laws, including elimination of the practice of trial before “faceless” judges, creation of an ad hoc commission empowered to grant pardons, the possibility of executive clemency for persons tried for and convicted of the crimes of terrorism and treason, and commutation of sentence for those who avail themselves of the Repentance Law. 162. In the Judgment on the merits of the instant Case, delivered on September 17, 1997 (Loayza Tamayo Case, supra 123, para. 68), the Court’s finding was that Decree-Laws 25,474 and 25,659 were incompatible with Article 8(4) of the Convention. The case law of this Court is that States Parties to the Convention may not order measures that violate rights and freedoms recognized therein (Suárez Rosero Case, Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 97). 163. The Decree-Laws in question refer to actions not strictly defined (Loayza Tamayo Case, supra 123, para. 68), were invoked in the military court and regular court proceedings, and caused the victim injury. 164. Consequently, with respect to Decree-Laws 25,475 and 25,659, the Court finds that the State must comply with its obligations under Article 2 of the Convention, which stipulates that: [w]here the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. XIV THE DUTY TO TAKE DOMESTIC MEASURES 165. In her reparations brief, the victim petitioned the Court to request Peru to have proceedings instituted before the competent courts for the purpose of investigating, identifying and punishing the material and intellectual authors of the events that gave rise to the instant case and the accessories after the fact. 166. In its reparations brief, the Commission requested that the Court order that judicial proceedings be instituted and administrative measures taken to investigate