26 56.13) The working paper was again discussed and voted on January 16, 1997 (supra 56.7), and became a final judgment by three votes in favor of non-applicability and four abstentions. This judgment declared “Interpretation Law No. 26,657 NON-APPLICABLE, by unanimity of the votes emitted, with the abstentions indicated, in exercise of its oversight authority, in the specific case of the incumbent President’s candidacy for the office of President in the year 2000.” The judgment was only signed by Justices Aguirre Roca, Rey Terry and Revoredo Marsano. On January 17, 1997, the judgment was published in the official gazette, El Peruano. Owing to typographical errors, it was published again the following day. However, the date that appears in the judgment is January 3, 199725; 56.14) On January 16, 1997, a “judgment” declaring the complaint unfounded was delivered, signed by Justices Acosta Sánchez and García Marcelo, “as the special majority of six concurring votes established in article 4 of Law No. 26,435, which are required to declare Law No. 26,657 unconstitutional had not been attained, because four [j]ustices of this Court ha[d] abstained from submitting an opinion on the merits of the disputed issue”. According to a press communiqué issued by the President of the Constitutional Court, this judgment lacked “legal value and effect”26; 56.15) On January 20, 1997, the Lima Bar Association requested a clarification of the judgment of January 16, 1997 (supra 56.13). The following day, the three justices who had signed this judgment decided that, “[a]s there is nothing in the judgment to clarify, the request is inadmissible.” On March 14, 1997, the Court in plenary agreed that clarifications of judgments should only be provided by those who had signed the judgment and “exclude those who had not signed it” and ratified “expressly the procedure used for the clarification requested by the Lima Bar Association, in File No. 002-96-I/TC”27; complaints concerning the Constitutional Court of April 18, 1997, Tome II, Annex 8; and official letter from the office of the President of the Constitutional Court of April 10, 1997, Tome III, Annex 1. 25 Cf. Article 63 of the statute of the Constitutional Court, Law No. 26,435, promulgated on December 23, 1994, Tome I, Annex 2; judgment of January 3, 1997 of the Constitutional Court in file No. 002-96-I/TC, that declared Interpretation Law No. 26,657 non-applicable, Tome I, Annex 7; brief of the Lima Bar Association dated January 20, 1997, with petition for clarification of judgment, concerning judgment of January 3, 1997, that declared Interpretation Law No. 26,657 non-applicable, Tome I, Annex 9; transcript of the statement of Justice Manuel Aguirre Roca before the Investigation Committee responsible for clarifying the complaints concerning the Constitutional Court on March 31, 1997, Tome II, Annex 5; transcript of the statement of Justice Guillermo Rey Terry before the Investigation Committee responsible for clarifying the complaints concerning the Constitutional Court on April 4, 1997, Tome II, Annex 6; and technical opinion of Enrique Bernales Ballesteros of December 12, 2000. 26 Cf. Article 4 of the statute of the Constitutional Court, Law No. 26,435, promulgated on December 23, 1994, Tome I, Annex 2; “judgment” of the Constitutional Court of January 3, 1997, in file 002-96I/TC, declaring that the action challenging the constitutionality of Law No. 26,657 is unfounded, Tome I, Annex 8; transcript of the statement of Justice Manuel Aguirre Roca before the Investigation Committee responsible for clarifying the complaints concerning the Constitutional Court on March 31, 1997, Tome II, Annex 5; transcript of the statement of Justice José García Marcelo before the Investigation Committee responsible for clarifying the complaints concerning the Constitutional Court of April 4, 1997, Tome II, Annex 6; official letter of the President of the Constitutional Court of January 28, 1997, in the appeal filed by Justice Manuel Aguirre Roca before the Congressional Permanent Commission on May 23, 1997, Tome III, Annex 12; and technical opinion of Enrique Bernales Ballesteros of December 12, 2000. 27 Cf. Article 59 of the statute of the Constitutional Court, Law No. 26,435, promulgated on December 23, 1994, Tome I, Annex 2; Article 406 of Peru’s Civil Procedural Code, Tome I, Annex 11; brief