3 2. The communications submitted by the State of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”) on February 25, 2005, February 2, 2006, April 4, 2006, April 25, 2006, September 4, 2006, January 25, 2007 and November 6, 2007, reporting, inter alia, that: a) in regards to the duty to comply with the right to freedom from ex post facto laws and the requirements of due process in the new proceeding pending against Ms. De La Cruz Flores: i. on July 10, 2006 the Sala Penal Nacional (National Criminal Chamber) rendered judgment in the second criminal proceeding brought against Ms. De La Cruz Flores, whereby she was found guilty of “the crime against Public Peace - Terrorism - Affiliation, to the detriment of the State” and sentenced to eight years, two months and eleven days in prison, which were deemed served; in addition, she was suspended from the practice of medicine for one year following said judgment of conviction and was ordered to pay a fine of approximately PEN300; ii. the second criminal proceeding instituted against Ms. De La Cruz Flores is still pending given that the decision was appealed; therefore, non-compliance may not be argued in relation to this point insofar as the plaintiff had all due process guarantees at her disposal and access to available appeal remedies; iii. the Peruvian State has not violated any constitutional right or law or due process guarantee whatsoever during the new criminal proceeding pending against Ms. De La Cruz Flores; iv. the right to freedom from ex post facto laws was not violated in the new criminal proceeding inasmuch as criminal statutes in force at the time of the events were applied. The classification of the offense of which Ms. De La Cruz Flores was convicted is based on Section 288 - C of the 1924 Criminal Code, which was introduced by means of Law No. 24651, as amended by Law No. 24953, and on Section 322 of the 1991 Criminal Code and Section 5 of Decree Law No. 25475; v. the factual findings against Ms. De La Cruz were based on the fact that she belonged to the terrorist group Sendero Luminoso, which conforMs. to the statutory definition set out in Section 5 of Decree Law No. 25475, which provides that the mere affiliation with or membership in a terrorist group is a punishable offense; therefore, there was no violation of the right to freedom from ex post facto laws, and vi. the facts alleged by the representative were considered by the Court prior to rendering Judgment in the instant case. The Court provided an analysis of the new criminal proceeding in paragraphs 73(39) to 73(52) of the Judgment of November 18, 2004 and no irregularity was found in the criminal proceeding pending against her. b) in regards to the obligation of the State to pay the amounts specified in the Judgment as compensation for pecuniary and non pecuniary damage and costs and expenses: