24 cells was an unreasonable and disproportionate measure, which constituted cruel and inhuman treatment, and violated Article 2(1) of the Peruvian Constitution and Article 5(1), 5(2) and 5(6) of the American Convention. The same was true of the requirement to maintain prisoners in one-person cells throughout their confinement. Legislative Decree No. 927 was issued in response to the Constitutional Court’s reservations in this area. It gave those imprisoned for terrorism access to prison benefits, authorizing reduction of the length of the sentence, although with different requirements from other crimes. However, this norm did not make it possible to grant the benefit of partial liberty. Supreme Decree 015-2003 of September 23, 2003, which adopted the regulations for the Code on Execution of Sentences, regulated detention conditions, and prisoners’ rights and duties, and established an “ordinary closed regime, with identical characteristics to those of the said Supreme Decree No. 003-2001-JUS”. With regard to the current penitentiary situation of prisoners for the crime of terrorism, they have been placed in different national prisons, generally in separate blocks from those destined to prisoners for other crimes. They are usually placed on the basis of their links to the Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) and Túpac Amaru movements or their separation from these organizations (so-called “desvinculados” [disconnected] or independent individuals). The conditions of detention and access to the different prison services are similar to those of the rest of the prison population. The shortcomings that subsist respond to the critical situation of the Peruvian penitentiary system in general. The prison administrators may determine a special regime for certain prisoners (Supreme Decree 006-2001-JUS), applicable to any prisoner, irrespective of his crime. The Constitutional Court’s judgment may be considered a step towards adapting anti-terrorist legislation to the Constitution and the American Convention. This judgment is binding for all the public powers, particularly the Legislature and the Judiciary as regards interpretation (Article 35 of the basic law of the Constitutional Court, Act 23,435). Hence, this is a legislative reform relating to the adaptation of anti-terrorist provisions to Peruvian constitutional norms and the American Convention. An example of this is that the jurisdictional body guarantees the right to a defense, the adversarial principle and equal protection of law, and to summon officials who took part in preparing the police investigation report as witnesses in the oral hearing. Nevertheless, the fact that debatable aspects or aspects that can be improved subsist, should not permit it to be said that, today, the Peruvian State is unwilling to comply with its international human rights obligations. B) TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE