82 e) In the first proceedings conducted against him, Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas was sentenced to twenty five years’ imprisonment for the “crimes of aggravated terrorism, committed in his capacity as chief, leader, or head, and extortionate abduction,” as defined in Article 320(1) and 320(5) of the Criminal Code of 1991, following a series of criminal acts that occurred in 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, and between May and August 1991; f) The simultaneous application of the provisions related to aggravated terrorism as contained in Article 320 and those related to membership in and affiliation with a terrorist organization as provided in Article 322 of the Peruvian Criminal Code, “constitutes a seeming concurrence of criminal definitions which are mutually exclusive by reason of specificity; therefore, only one of them is to be applied; otherwise, the non bis in idem principle would be violated, as well as the nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege praevia principle enshrined in Article 9 of the Convention;” g) In the first proceedings conducted against him, Wilson García-Asto was convicted by a judgment entered on April 18, 1996 by the Special Criminal Chamber for Terrorism of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima (Sala Penal Especial de Terrorismo de la Corte Superior de Lima), which was composed of “faceless” judges, of the crime of collaboration with terrorism, as defined in Article 4 of Decree-Law No. 25.475, and of the crime of terrorist membership in and affiliation with a terrorist organiztion as defined in Article 5 thereof, which are incompatible;” and h) New proceedings were instituted against Wilson García-Asto for the crime of affiliation with a terrorist organization as established in Article 5 of Decree-Law No. 25.475. Arguments of the representatives 177. In relation to Article 9 of the Convention, the representatives pointed out that they endorsed the arguments included in the Commission’s application and added that: a) Article 320 of the Criminal Code of 1991 established “a gradation of sentences in relation to the conduct described in Article 319 thereof, that is, it w[ould] be necessary to apply the basic definition, which [...] violates the international standards of the nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege praevia principle;” b) Article 2 of Decree-Law 25.475 “includes an open-ended definition of the crime of terrorism;” c) “[I]n formulating the definitions contained in [Article 5 of Decree-Law No. 25.475], it was intended to go beyond the perpetration of concrete criminal acts, without emphasizing their commission. Hence, this legal provision establishes a substantial change from a criminal system based on the crime committed, which punishes the individuals’ illegal conduct, to a system based on the perpetrator.” The “expansion of substantive criminal law [...], was also reflected in the definition of the so-called acts of collaboration with terrorism” included in Article 4 of Decree-Law No. 25.475;