19 which confirmed that the United States Government was observing the conditions in which the trial was held and the final ruling of the Supreme Court, and considered that the basic standards of due process of law had been respected. The local human rights community shared this opinion. The process of regularizing the State’s institutional structure continued after the Government was handed over to President Alejandro Toledo Manrique. On January 3, 2003, the Constitutional Court of Peru declared that a series of provisions included in the decree laws on terrorism promulgated in 1992 were anti-constitutional and revoked them. It ordered a review of the trials held by the military courts or before courts with “faceless judges,” and of any other trials whose result had been determined by the application of a norm that had been declared anti-constitutional. In execution of this ruling, Congress delegated special faculties to the Executive to review and redefine the applicable legislation in these cases, by Law No. 27,913. In February 2003, the Executive enacted six legislative decrees establishing the procedures for reviewing judicial cases. e. Testimony of Walter Albán Peralta, Ombudsman of the Republic of Peru Following the coup d’état of April 1992, the legislative system for the criminal prosecution of terrorism was designed and consolidated during the Government of Alberto Fujimori. The military justice system was given a leading role and expanded, which was unconstitutional. The State promoted and supported the unlawful activities of the intelligence services, and designed a legal and extra-legal system for the control of the justice system. The anti-terrorist legislation was the expression of this authoritarian political regime, which perceived respect for the rule of law and fundamental rights as obstacles to the need to combat terrorism. At the substantive level, Decree Law No. 25,475 of May 6, 1992, regulated the basic crime of terrorism, and some aggravated categories: collaboration with and justification of terrorism. Decree Law No. 25,659 defined other aggravated types of the crime of terrorism as crimes of treason. Decree Law No. 25,580 also considered that the justification of terrorism by teachers constituted treason. Decree Law No. 26,880 considered the same with regard to cases of terrorism involving persons availing themselves of the repentance legislation. Defining these crimes as treason responded expressly to the desire to transfer their prosecution to the military justice system. At the procedural level, Decree Law No. 25,475 included the procedural system applicable to the basic crime of terrorism and to the other categories of crime regulated in this norm. Decree Law No. 25,659 of August 13, 1992, excluded habeas corpus in the case of those prosecuted for crimes of terrorism. Decree Law No. 25,728 of September 18, 1992, established the possibility of convicting a person in absentia. Decree Law 25,708 of September 10, 1992, established that crimes of treason would be judged using a procedure known as “in the theater of operations,” established in the Code of Military Justice. Finally, Decree Law No. 25,744 established rules applicable to the police investigation, preparation of the case and trial of crimes of treason.