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

Select target paragraph3