2 2. The Commission submitted the application in accordance with Article 61 of the American Convention, for the Court to decide whether the State had violated Articles 7 (Right to Personal Freedom), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 9 (Freedom from Ex Post Facto Laws) and 24 (Right to Equal Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of María Teresa De La Cruz Flores (hereinafter “the alleged victim” or “Mrs. De La Cruz Flores”). The Commission also requested the Court to declare that the State had failed to comply with the obligation embodied in Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the Convention, also to the detriment of María Teresa De La Cruz Flores. Lastly, the Commission requested the Court to order the State to adopt a series of measures of pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparation, and also to pay the costs arising from processing the case in the domestic jurisdiction and before the inter-American system for the protection of human rights. 3. According to the Commission, María Teresa De La Cruz Flores, a physician by profession; was detained by police agents on March 27, 1996, after she had completed her shift as a pediatrician with the Peruvian Social Security Institute. She was charged with terrorism, processed under file No. 113-95 and, after she had been detained, was notified of a warrant for her arrest in file No. 723-93 for the crime of terrorism, a file which, according to the Commission, had been reported to be mislaid at that time. The alleged victim was prosecuted by a court composed of a “faceless” judge, which sentenced her on November 21, 1996, for the crime of terrorism to 20 years’ imprisonment, under the provisions of Decree Law No. 25,475. This sentence was confirmed by the judgment of the Special Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on June 8, 1998. The Commission also stated that, on January 3, 2003, the Constitutional Court of Peru had delivered a judgment in which it declared the unconstitutionality of several provisions of Decree Laws Nos. 25,475 and 25,659; although it did not issue any special ruling in relation to Article 2 of Decree Law 25,475, which defined the crime of terrorism. Following that decision, the Government issued Legislative Decrees Nos. 923, 924, 925, 926 and 927, on February 19, 2003. These decrees established that, within sixty working days from the entry into force of this legislation, the National Terrorism Chamber should gradually annul, de oficio, the judgment and the oral proceeding and, if applicable, declare the absence of grounds for the charge, in criminal trials for offences of terrorism conducted before secret judges or prosecutors, unless the person convicted waived this right. However, the Commission indicated that, at the date the application was submitted, Mrs. De La Cruz Flores was still detained, convicted of the crime of terrorism. II COMPETENCE 4. The Court is competent to hear the instant case, in the terms of Articles 62 and 63(1) of the American Convention, because Peru has been a State Party to the Convention since July 28, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. III PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION 5. The Inter-American Commission opened case No. 12,138 on April 28, 1999, based on a petition filed by Alcira De La Cruz Flores, representing María Teresa De La