by the representatives regarding i) the failure to prove the crimes of which some of those convicted were accused; ii) the criteria applied to establish punishments; iii) the erroneous consideration of terrorism as a crime against humanity; iv) the use of “the laws that the Inter-American Court had declared were in violation of the Convention” in the judgments of the Superior Chamber and the Transitory Criminal Chamber, and iv) the inclusion in the body of evidence of the testimony of a “key repentant,” who, according to the Inter-American Commission “was the fundamental element that justified the conviction” of Mr. Astorga Valdéz. Accordingly, it requested the State to clarify: i) “[t]he application in the proceedings of Decree Law [No.] 25.475, and the criteria for its application, taking into consideration the Court’s decision,” and ii) “the criteria for the incorporation of the testimony of a “key repentant” […] into the [body of evidence of the] proceedings.” Since it requested these clarifications on April 3, 2006, the Commission has not referred to the issue again. ii) Considerations of the Court 41. The Court takes note that, in compliance with the Court’s judgment in the instant case, the Plenary Chamber of the Supreme Council of Military Justice of Peru decreed the nullity of the proceedings under the military jurisdiction against the victims for the crime of treason, and the criminal action was continued against them under the ordinary criminal jurisdiction. After this, on September 2, 2003, the National Terrorism Chamber, in charge of the new proceedings in the ordinary [civil] jurisdiction, handed down a judgment convicting the victims for the perpetration of the crime of terrorism against the State. Accordingly, the Court underscores that, as a result of the second new proceedings, Messers. Castillo Petruzzi, Mellado Saavedra, Pincheira Sáez, and Astorga Valdez were sanctioned with terms of imprisonment of 23, 20, 18 and 15 years, respectively, in contrast to the life imprisonment that was imposed on them in application of article 4 of Decree Law No. 25.659. Thus, at the date this order is issued, the Court notes that the victims are serving their respective sentences, three of them with the prison regime benefit of parole (supra Considering clause 35 and 37), and Mr. Castillo Petruzzi is the only one who remains deprived of liberty. 42. Furthermore, the Court notes that several judicial decisions issued during the new proceedings referred to the provisions of the judgment of the Inter-American Court in this case (supra Considering clause 33). Indeed, the victims were given a new trial before a natural judge (ordinary [civil] jurisdiction), with hearing and defense guarantees. During the proceedings, several types of evidence were examined, the accused were able to question the prosecution witnesses, some of whom ratified their accusations, and specific concerns about judicial independence and alleged malfeasance of the judges in charge of the case were decided. In this context, the domestic judicial authorities, at different times, abstained from applying several norms of the Peruvian anti-terrorist legislation that was in force at the time, bearing in mind this Court’s findings as regards their incompatibility with the American Convention (supra Considering clause 33). 43. The representatives argued, at different times, that the application of Decree Law No. 25.475 as grounds for the accusation for the crime of terrorism resulted in the nullity of the proceedings, given that the same norm was being used that had been declared in violation of human rights. In this regard, the Court stresses that the violations of the principle of legality in the judgment delivered in this case were directly related to the application of the crime classified as treason. Despite the Court’s previous decision as regards the obligation to reform the norms declared to be in violation of the American Convention (supra Considering clauses 19 to 25), the Court finds it necessary to recall what it indicated in another case with regard to the crime of terrorism regulated by Decree Law No. 25.475: 12