3
d)
as regards the alleged violation of the right to be tried by a competent
court, under to Article 8(1) of the Convention, “[Mrs.] Lori Berenson was tried
by a special court ad hoc,” which makes it necessary for the Court to clarify if,
according to the criteria established in the Judgment, “it should be understood
that the cases tried by special courts ad hoc under Decree Law 25,475 can be
considered ordinary proceedings heard by a competent judge and that the laws,
the judges and the legal proceedings are, under the law, the appropriate ones
for criminal actions and for convicting the accused persons;”
e)
as regards the alleged violation of Article 8(2) of the Convention,
“[a]lthough the Court admitted that the Anti-Terrorism Civil Division based its
decision exclusively on evidence arising from acts performed directly under the
jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Civil Division, it cannot verify such a fact since
it is impossible to determine, from the analysis of the judgment, upon which
evidence, if any, the Judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Civil Division declaring
[Mrs.] Lori Berenson guilty, was based”. In this sense, the Court should clarify
whether the Judgment “states that a court of a State that has convicted an
accused person and that has clearly admitted the existence of illegal evidence in
the proceedings, may avoid its liability for violation of Article 8(2) of the
Convention by declaring merely that its judgment was not based on any illegal
evidence, and that it had dispassionately weighed evidence that was slightly
defective, although it did not specify upon which evidence the sentence was
based;”
f)
“[i]t looks like the Judgment eliminates any need of Peru to comply with
Article 2 of the Convention and also eliminates the requirement that the
provisions of Decree Law 25,475, including Article 4, be adapted in order to
comply with the provisions in Article 9 of the Convention by adequately defining
terrorism or the terrorist acts with which cooperation is forbidden[, and
consequently] Peru shall not be obliged to comply with such provisions, unless
the Court clarifies the meaning and scope of the Judgment and the
interpretation thereof may change the impression it creates;”
g)
“the Court refused to consider many [claims for relief] made by [Mrs.
Lori] Berenson in the instant case”, which “shows the Court is biased in favor of
the State, unless the meaning of the Court’s decisions be clarified and such
impression is changed.
h)
“there remains the general impression that, due to political pressures,
the Court changed its opinion in one of the most publicized and politicized cases
brought before it[, for which reason] the Court must clarify the measures it
adopted and thus modify the idea created by media reports that the Court
changed its decision responding to political pressures. Otherwise, the Court void
the Judgment and declare that one or more provisions of the Convention have
been violated, as determined by the [Inter-American] Commission [of Human
Rights (hereinafter, the “Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”)]”.
III