The action prohibited is the apology of terrorism that constitutes an incitement to violence or to any other illegal act. Consequently, this article 316 of the Criminal Code must be applied taking into consideration the criteria of whether the punishment is warranted in function of the severity of the action. Thus, not all opinions expressed in favor of a terrorist act, or its perpetrator, constitute an offense; but rather, certain limits must be respected. There are: a) That the endorsement refers to a terrorist act that has already been executed; b) That when the defense refers to the person who has committed the offense, this person must have been found guilty by a non-appealable judgment; c) That the medium used by the apologist is capable of achieving the publicity required by the definition of the offense; in other words, that it should be an appropriate means of divulging the support to an indeterminate number of persons, and d) That the praise infringes the democratic rules of plurality, tolerance and consensus-seeking. 412 293. In addition, the Court recalls that in order to ensure the right to defend oneself, the text of a criminal accusation must set out all the evidence for this. The Court observes that the actual indictment against Ms. J. indicates the evidence on which it is based. However, the Court notes that the said indictment does not take into account probative elements produced during the first stage of the proceedings that support the presumed victim’s version of the facts, such as the testimony of her father (regarding the ownership of the weapons presumably found in J.’s room) or the expertise on the handwritten documents that were found, which concluded that the writing did not correspond to Ms. J. It is contrary to the right to be tried with the due guarantees that, when determining the charges, the Public Prosecution Service only took into account the elements that incriminate the accused and not those that could support her version. In this regard, the Court emphasizes the representative’s argument that it would not be impossible to replicate some of the probative elements produced during the first stage of the proceedings. 294. Based on all the above, the Court concludes that the indeterminacy and vagueness of the description of the conducts that could supposedly be attributed to Ms. J., as well as the absence of conducts that fall within the definition all the offenses for which she is being prosecuted, have affected Ms. J.’s ability to exercise her right to defend herself adequately. 295. Nevertheless, the Court considers that this does not constitute a defect of the legal norm as such, but rather of the text of the complaints, orders to open the preliminary investigation, and charges in the proceedings against the presumed victim (at both the first and the second stages), so that it does not reveal a shortcoming relating to the principle of legality, but rather a violation of the presumed victim’s right to defend herself because, owing to the imprecisions and ambiguities, she has been prevented from knowing the specific acts that she is accused of, the dates of such acts, and other detailed information, in order to exercise an adequate defense. Therefore, the Court concludes that the State has violated Article 8(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. iii. The fact that the new criminal proceedings are allegedly based on illegal evidence, and the alleged prescription of the offense of apology of terrorism of which Ms. J. is accused 296. The representative also argued that the prosecution of Ms. J. for the offense of apology of terrorism violated the principle of legality. In this regard, the Court notes that, in a decision of the Second Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, in the context of the extradition request, it was indicated that the offense of apology of terrorism had prescribed (supra para. 118). convicted as its perpetrator or participant shall be sentenced to no less than one and no more than four years’ imprisonment. If the crime endorsed is against public security and peace, against the State and national defense, or against the powers of the State and the constitutional order, the sentence shall be no less than four and no more than six years’ imprisonment.” Cf. 1991 Peruvian Criminal Code (file of annexes to the State’s brief of August 14, 2013, folio 5442). 412 Judgment of the Constitutional Court of January 3, 2003, File No. 010-2002-AI/TCLIMA, conclusions 41, 112 and 113 (merits report, folios 1557). 86