7 criteria which ensure that the law in force in Peru -which, as acknowledged by the judgment to which my separate opinion is appended, is compatible with the nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege praevia principle enshrined in Article 9 of the Convention- is to be applied, by order of the Supreme Court, within the limits of reasonability and proportionality, consistent with the respect for the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution and the human rights protected by the American Convention, as follows: “Ninth: That, it should be noted that the basic description of the crime of terrorism —set out in Article 2 of Decree-Law No. 25.475—, contains a teleological element, that is, it requires a specific mens rea, which materializes in terms of its ultimate purpose –the specific subjective element- as the subversion of the political and ideological system established under the constitution, which, in a strict sense, is the protected legal interest, so that the prohibited conduct and raison d’être of the crime is, from a final stance, the violent overthrow or change of the existing constitutional system, as laid down by the decision rendered by the Constitutional Court on November 15, 2001 in the Matter of the Ombudsman’s Office against Special Terrorism Legislation, Case No. 005-2001-AI/TC. In respecting the essence of the constitutional principles laid down by the decision rendered by the Constitutional Court on January 3, 2003, it is necessary to delimit the general scope of the aforesaid provision, which requires, from the point of view of the objective elements, that the perpetrator carry out the described act in either of two ways, that is, as the commission of illegal acts against individual legal interests -life, physical integrity, personal freedom and safety, and property- or as against collective legal interests – the security of public buildings, means of communication or transport, power or transmission towers, power plants or any other property or services. In addition, it requires, concurrently, that the offender use certain described means: catastrophic explosive material or devices and those which are capable of causing certain and serious damage; and, finally, it must cause concrete described results: havoc, serious disturbance of the peace and disruption of international relations or the safety of the public and the Government; along with the subjective element (the offender’s intent), notwithstanding the required mens rea referred to above; that, as it concerns a statutory definition of a crime of significant importance, it is appropriate to accord this interpretation —which, essentially supplemented the interpretation given by the Constitutional Court— the status of binding precedent, in accordance with Article 301-A, paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedural Code enacted by Legislative Decree No. 959.” (underlined in the original). Regarding the issue of the alleged arbitrary detention (Article 7(3) of the American Convention) in relation to the second proceedings brought against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, I concur with the rest of the Judges only in respect of the period of time he was held in custody without any legal grounds, which extended from May 13, 2003 to June 27, 2003, but I dissent from the rest of the Inter-American decision.