ii) Considerations of the Court 11. The Court considers it necessary to recall that in the Judgment on the Merits of this case, it declared the international responsibility of the Peruvian State for the violation of the rights to personal integrity, fair trial [judicial guarantees] and ex post facto laws [the principle of legality and retroactivity] enshrined in Articles 5.1, 5.2, 5.6, 9, 8.1, 8.2, 8.2(b), c), d), f), and h) and 8.5 in relation to the general obligations under Article 1.1 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mrs. Lori Berenson. Moreover, the Court concluded that during the military trial of Mrs. Berenson, the State failed to comply with the obligation established in Article 2 of the American Convention. 12. In this ruling, the Court assessed the two proceedings carried out against Mrs. Berenson. Specifically, the proceeding instituted in the military court for the crime of treason (Articles 1, 2, and 3 of Decree Law No. 25.659) and another in the ordinary [civil] courts for the crime of collaboration with terrorism (Article 4 of Decree Law No. 25.475). Specifically, the Court noted that the crimes of treason and collaboration with terrorism refer to actions that could be categorized indistinctly within one crime or the other and, as a consequence, the judgment issued by the military court for the crime of treason and other resolutions adopted by this jurisdiction were based on legislation that is incompatible with the American Convention5 and in violation of Article 9 of the Convention. 13. With regard to the criminal definition applied to the victim in the proceeding that took place in the ordinary [civil] jurisdiction, the Court noted that “some hypotheses of collaboration with terrorism were invoked and applied” and that in its view this proceeding “did not contain the defects that were previously observed with regard to the crime of treason.” 6 Consequently, it considered that these criminal definitions were compatible with the American Convention.7 14. Furthermore, in the aforementioned Judgment, the Court noted that “on the one hand, the judgment delivered by the Constitutional Court on January 3, 2003 [,] declared that the definition of the crime of treason contained in Decree Law No. 25.659 was unconstitutional, and on the other hand, procedural norms were issued for prosecuting terrorism.” 8 The Court also pointed out that “the Executive issued Legislative Decrees No. 921 of January 17, 2003, No. 922 of February 11, 2003 and Nos. 923 to 927 of February 19, 2003, which, among other provisions, contained the jurisprudential criteria set out in the aforementioned judgment.” In this regard, the Court indicated that it “appreciate [d] and emphasize [d] the efforts made by the State in its recent legislative reforms, because these denote significant progress on the matter.”9 15. From the information presented by the parties, the Court finds that no specific objections or observations were made regarding the information presented by Peru on this measure of reparation. The Court notes that the representative submitted information on the creation of a new law that repealed Legislative Decree No. 927, which 5 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para.121. 6 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía v. Peru. Merits, supra note 5, para. 127. 7 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía v. Peru, supra note 5, para. 127. 8 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía v. Peru, supra note 5, para. 223. 9 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía v. Peru, supra note 5, para. 234. 4