32 Peruvian Constitution and legislation, the judgments rendered by said court are deemed “to have the value of laws” and “are binding on all public authorities.”20 97(7) Regarding Article 2 of Decree-Law No. 25.475, which describes the crime of terrorism, the above-mentioned judgment of the Constitutional Court of Peru (supra para. 97(5)) declared said provision to be constitutional as it “conveys a message which allows citizens to know the content of the prohibition, so that they may distinguish that which is forbidden from that which is permitted […]. Within the reasonable margins of indetermination contained by this provision, the application of this mechanism should be orientated in the direction showed by the interpretative provisions of [the] judgment, whereby any interpretations departing from these guidelines breach the nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege praevia principle.”21 The judgment did not address Articles 4 and 5 of the above-mentioned Decree-Law, which describe the crime of collaboration with terrorism and that of membership in and affiliation with terrorist organizations. 97(8) As a result of the judgment rendered by the Constitutional Court of Peru (supra para. 97(5)), the Executive Power issued Legislative Decrees No. 921, 922, 923, 924, 925, 926, and 927, aimed at regulating the effects of such judgment in relation to “the legal provisions pertaining to life imprisonment, […] setting the maximum penalties for the crimes described by Articles 2, 3, paragraphs (b) and (c), 4, 5, and 9 of DecreeLaw No. 25.475, and […] regulating the procedures for processing motions for retrials and the proceedings referred to in the […] Judgment.”22 97(9) Legislative Decree No. 926 set forth the annulment of judgments, oral proceedings, and, in some cases, the discontinuance of the prosecution’s case in the proceedings started for the crime of terrorism and being heard by “faceless” judges and prosecutors. Regarding the effects of the above-mentioned annulment, Article 4 of Legislative Decree No. 926 provided that “[t]he annulment declared pursuant to this Legislative Decree shall not result in the freedom of the accused, nor in the suspension of the existing summonses.” The first supplementary provision established that the “detention deadline pursuant to Article 137 of the Criminal Procedural Code in the proceedings where the [above-mentioned] Legislative Decree is applied, shall be calculated as from the date of the order providing the annulment.”23 a) Facts regarding Wilson García-Asto 20 Cf. Judgment rendered by the Constitutional Court of Peru on January 3, 2003, wherein it ruled on a motion of constitutionality submitted by Marcelino Tineo-Silva and over 5,000 citizens, case file No. 0102002-AI/TC Lima (case file of appendixes to the application, appendix 51, pages 374 to 443). 21 Cf. Judgment rendered by the Constitutional Court of Peru on January 3, 2003, wherein it ruled on the motion of constitutionality submitted by Marcelino Tineo-Silva and over 5,000 citizens, case file No. 0102002-AI/TC Lima (case file of appendixes to the application, appendix 51, pages 374 to 443). 22 Cf. Judgment rendered by the Constitutional Court of Peru on January 3, 2003, wherein it ruled on a popular motion of constitutionality submitted by Marcelino Tineo-Silva and over 5,000 citizens, case file No. 010-2002-AI/TC Lima (case file of appendixes to the application, appendix 51, pages 374 to 443); and Legislative Decrees No. 921, 922, 923, 925, and 926 (case file of appendixes to the application, appendixes 52 to 58, pages 444 to 463). 23 to 462). Cf. Legislative Decree No. 926 (case file of appendixes to the application, appendix 57, pages 460