99 provisions of the Convention are effectively fulfilled in its domestic legal system, as Article 2 of the Convention requires.272 221. The Court has indicated that the States Parties to the Convention may not enact measures that violate the rights and freedoms it recognizes.273 This Court has also affirmed that “a norm may violate per se Article 2 of the Convention, whether or not it has been enforced in [a] specific case.”274 222. Furthermore, the Court finds, as it has on previous occasions, that the provisions of the emergency laws adopted by the State to deal with terrorism, in particular Decree Laws Nos. 25,475 and 25,659, enforced in the case of Lori Berenson during the military trial, violated Article 2 of the American Convention, because the fact that these decrees were enacted and in force in Peru at the time when the military trial against Lori Berenson was held, meant that the State had not taken proper domestic legal measures to give effect to the rights embodied in the Convention, despite having ratified it.275 223. The Court has observed that, on the one hand, the judgment delivered by the Constitutional Court on January 3, 2003 (supra para. 88(7)) declared that the definition of the crime of treason contained in Decree Law No. 25,659 was unconstitutional and, on the other hand, procedural norms were issued for prosecuting terrorism. However, in this judgment, it is not in order to examine the scope of these reforms, because they do not affect Lori Berenson’s legal status. 224. The judgment handed down against Lori Berenson in the military jurisdiction (supra para. 88(30)) was based on legislation that was incompatible with the American Convention. The proceedings of that trial violated the rights to judicial protection and to due process embodied in the Convention. 225. The Court notes that the State is implementing a process of reform in order to adapt its domestic legislation to the American Convention. 226. Consequently, the Court concludes that, when the military trial against Lori Berenson was held, the State failed to comply with the obligation established in Article 2 of the American Convention. XIII REPARATIONS APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 272 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 205; Case of Bulacio, supra note 217, para. 142; and Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 268, para. 164. 273 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 16, para. 71; Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 216, para. 182; Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 25, para. 176; and International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (arts. 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 36. 274 Cf. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.). Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 72; Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 216, para. 183; and Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 25, para. 176. 275 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 25, para. 178; and Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al., supra note 25, para. 207.