33 meeting and communicating in private with their defense lawyers for up to 6 hours a day;35 carrying out any permitted activity in their cells, the corridors, or the exercise yard, at the appropriate time, and carrying out individual or group activities “compatible with the environment” of the establishment in which they were confined.36 88(7) On January 3, 2003, after the facts on which this case is based, the Constitutional Court of Peru delivered a judgment examining the alleged unconstitutionality of various provisions of Decree Laws Nos. 25,475, 25,659, 25,708 and 25,880.37 The Constitutional Court decided, inter alia, that: 88(7)(i) Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 of Decree Law No. 25,659, which regulated the crime of “treason”, were unconstitutional. Also, “the phrase ‘or treason’ in Article 6 of Decree Law No. 25,659, and Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Decree Law No. 25,708 [and] Articles 1 and 2 of Decree Law No. 25,880 were unconstitutional. Finally, Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Decree Law No. 25,744 were also unconstitutional”38; 88(7)(ii) Also, Article 7, Article 12(d) and Article 13(h) of Decree Law No. 25,475 were unconstitutional, as well as the phrases “with solitary confinement during the first year of detention and then...” and “[t]he Director of the establishment is responsible for ensuring that those convicted never share their individual cells, and this disciplinary regime shall be in force until they are released,” both contained in Article 20 of this decree;39 88(7)(iii) Article 2 of Decree Law No. 25,475 was not unconstitutional. Within the “margins of reasonable ambiguity” contained in this norm, the interpretation criteria established in this judgment would be binding for all juridical agents;40 88(7)(iv) Paragraphs (a) and (c) of Article 13, both of Decree Law No. 25,475 were not unconstitutional. The interpretation criteria established in this judgment would be binding for all juridical agents;41 35 Cf. Article 2 of Supreme Decree No. 003-2001-JUS of January 18, 2001 (file of probative evidence provided by the State, tome 12, folio 9372 and 9373). 36 Cf. Article 3 of Supreme Decree No. 003-2001-JUS of January 18, 2001 (file of probative evidence provided by the State, tome 12, folio 9372 and 9373). 37 Cf. judgment handed down by the Constitutional Court of Peru on January 3, 2003, to decide a public interest action on constitutionality filed by Marcelino Tineo Silva and more than 5,000 citizens, file No. 010-2002-AI/TC (file on merits, tome VI, folios 1364 to 1433). 38 Cf. judgment handed down by the Constitutional Court of Peru on January 3, 2003 ,to decide a public interest action on constitutionality filed by Marcelino Tineo Silva and more than 5,000 citizens, file No. 010-2002-AI/TC, para. 41 and operative paragraphs (file on merits, tome VI, folios 1364 to 1433). 39 Cf. judgment handed down by the Constitutional Court of Peru on January 3, 2003, to decide a public interest action on constitutionality filed by Marcelino Tineo Silva and more than 5,000 citizens, file No. 010-2002-AI/TC, paras. 88, 113 and 177 and operative paragraphs (file on merits, tome VI, folios 1364 to 1433). 40 Cf. judgment handed down by the Constitutional Court of Peru on January 3, 2003, to decide a public interest action on constitutionality filed by Marcelino Tineo Silva and more than 5,000 citizens, file No. 010-2002-AI/TC, paras. 77 and 78 and operative paragraphs (file on merits, tome VI, folios 1364 to 1433). 41 Cf. judgment handed down by the Constitutional Court of Peru on January 3, 2003, to decide a public interest action on constitutionality filed by Marcelino Tineo Silva and more than 5,000 citizens, file