Regarding the basic crime of terrorism established in article 2 of Decree Law No. 25.475, it should be indicated that this Court has not found elements to conclude that Article 9 of the Convention has been violated, because this crime establishes the elements of the criminalized conducts, allows them to be distinguished from conduct that is not punishable and unlawful conduct punishable with measures other than imprisonment and does not violate other norms of the American Convention. 28 44. In addition, although the representatives also contested the punishments imposed on the Mrs. Pincheira Saez and Mr. Mellado Saavedra in the second proceeding, the Court notes that, in its judgment, it did not develop a specific ruling on the proportionality of the punishments established in Decree Law No. 25.475. This limits the scope of the ruling that the Court can make in the context of the monitoring of compliance in this case. 45. In addition, the representatives alleged the violation of various guarantees to Pincheira Saez and Mr. Mellado Saavedra and Mr. Astorga Valdez in the context of the new trial; this was affirmed on more than one occasion before the domestic courts, which offered different answers to the concerns. For its part, in its latest brief, forwarded on April 3, 2006, the Inter-American Commission asked for clarifications regarding the application of Decree Law No. 25.475. The State has not presented any arguments in relation to this request; however, neither has the Commission specified how the application of the norm in this case could have involved specific violations of judicial guarantees. 46. In addition, the Court emphasizes that, following the last domestic judicial decision of the Supreme Court regarding Mr. Castillo Petruzzi, the representatives did not submit any specific allegation concerning violation of judicial guarantees to the detriment of the victim. 47. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Court notes that, although various arguments have been presented concerning alleged violations of due guarantees in the second proceeding against the victims, in the context of monitoring compliance, the Court has only examined the principle disputes directly related to specific problems declared in the judgment in this case, which, are basically circumscribed to the violation of judicial guarantees in the military jurisdiction. In this understanding, this Order does not constitute a ruling with regard to juridical problems that it would possibly be admissible to analyze in future cases arising from the application of the anti-terrorist laws. 48. Consequently, the Court finds it pertinent to conclude the monitoring of compliance with judgment with regard to the aspects corresponding to the obligation to guarantee a new trial with full observance of due process of law for Jaime Francisco Sebastián Castillo Petruzzi, María Concepción Pincheira Sáez, Lautaro Enrique Mellado Saavedra, and Alejandro Luis Astorga Valdez. C) Obligation to pay a total amount of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars of the United States of America) or the equivalent in Peru’s national currency, to the next of kin of the victims, who prove that they have incurred costs and expense by reason of this case (Operative paragraph fifteen of the judgment) 49. The State advised that, by Urgent Decree No. 030-2005, it had authorized “a supplementary credit in the public sector’s budget for the 2005 fiscal year […] in order to respond to a series of petitions, including the one related to the payment of legal obligations, including supranational judgments.” Thus, “the State affirmed that it “ha[d] coordinated with officials of the General Administrative Office of the Ministry of Justice 28 Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas V. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 194. 13