28 An immediate concern of Alejandro Toledo’s Government was to comply with the judgments of the Inter-American Court and the recommendations of the Inter-American Commission. Peru took care to comply with the pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparations ordered by the Court. These efforts were described by the Report of the Truth Commission’s Recommendations Monitoring Committee. In 2002 a draft law modifying the terrorism legislation was submitted to the Peruvian Congress. Although the Government’s intentions are not always reflected in Congress’s diligence in taking decisions, it is the latter that has the power to modify the established laws and punishments, respecting the separation of powers. The time limit for filing an action on unconstitutionality used to be six years from the issue of the contested norm. Alberto Fujimori’s Government reduced this period to six months and required the vote of six of the seven members of the tribunal to declare unconstitutionality. This made any action on unconstitutionality unfeasible; furthermore, the Peruvian Constitutional Court lacked three of its members who had been dismissed unfairly. During Alejandro Toledo’s Government, Congress issued a law restoring the time limit for filing an action on constitutionality to six years. Consequently, 5,000 citizens filed an action on unconstitutionality requesting the review of the counterterrorism legislation. The matter was decided by the judgment of the Constitutional Court of January 3, 2003. The Constitutional Court’s judgment was appropriate, since it decided the issue by interpreting the contested principle. A simple declaration of unconstitutionality would have created a void that could have caused greater harm. The Constitutional Court declared that some Articles and paragraphs of the criminal legislation were unconstitutional. The judgment referred to three main issues: first, with regard to the annulment of trials before military courts, it urged Congress to enact norms on processing requests for the annulment of trials in the military jurisdiction; second, the maximum penalty for crimes for which only a minimum penalty had been established; and, third, application of the principle of duration within the penalty of life imprisonment. The Constitutional Court’s judgment acted as a “precipitator” encouraging Peru to act. Before the judgment, the Executive had submitted a draft law to the Congress of the Republic. The request for powers and the “authoritative” legislation were not the only aspects of the Constitutional Court’s decision. Powers were also requested to legislate on criminal matters, criminal procedure and execution of sentences. The annulment of trials before unidentified judges was allowed, and prison benefits were established for those convicted of the crime of terrorism. The current Government of Peru is repairing the harm caused by the previous Government, a usurper government. The continuity of the crime classifications was maintained, although judges may not apply the phrases, paragraphs, subparagraphs or Articles that have