52 186 that would allow certain behaviors to be punished under the heading of that crime. Specifically, in the Usón Ramírez case, the Inter-American Court pointed out that the willful nature of the conduct is not part of the definition. In the words of the Court, by failing to indicate that the conduct had to be willful or intentional, the law allows the aggrieved party’s subjectivity to determine whether a crime exists, even though the active subject of 187 the crime may not have intended to harm, offend, or slander the passive subject. 231. In the instant case, the petitioner is alleging that Article 9 of the American Convention was violated because the description of the crime of terrorism contained in Decree Law 25475, which was the definition used to conduct the investigation, is the basis of the description established in Decree Law No. 25659 on treason, which the Inter-American Court has already held to be a violation of the principle of legality. 232. The State, for its part, observes that at the time Mr. Galindo pledged to repent, the law applied was Article 12(a) of Decree Law 25499 of May 16, 1993, which establishes the conditions for granting the benefits of a reduction, exemption, remission or softening of a penalty incurred in the commission of a crime of terrorism and articles 6, 27, 28 and 29 of Supreme Decree No. 015-03-JUS which regulates the Repentance Law. 233. The Commission is mindful of the fact that in combating the scourge of terrorism, the State has an obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish those persons found to be responsible for using violent, indiscriminate methods against the population for the purpose of causing alarm and inflicting harm. As this Commission has frequently declared, international law obliges member states to take the measures necessary to prevent terrorism and other forms of violence and to guarantee the security of their 188 populations. 234. This obligation of the State must be couched within the legal parameters that make it possible to conduct such proceedings without affecting the liberty of those persons who are unrelated or have nothing to do with the facts at issue; when the persons alleged to be responsible are identified, the State must, during the investigation and prosecution, be able to afford them the guarantees recognized in the international instruments that the State has undertaken to respect. In undertaking these initiatives, however, member states are equally obliged to remain in strict compliance with their other international obligations, including those under international human rights law and 189 international humanitarian law. 235. From the facts established, the Commission notes that on October 18, 1994, President Fujimori made statements to the press in which he accused Mr. Galindo Cárdenas “of having ties with the Sendero Luminoso”; then a communiqué released by the Ministry of Defense on October 17, 1994, accused him of “being an alleged terrorist criminal from the Sendero Luminoso.” The Commission observes that the first time Mr. Galindo’s alleged criminal conduct was identified was after his detention, in the November 4, 1994 decision of the Provincial Prosecutor from the Huánuco First Provincial Criminal Prosecutor’s Office. In that decision, Mr. Galindo is granted an exemption from punishment. This decision was delivered after he had been in detention for 18 days. According to the decision, “the facts in which the applicant has participated constitute criminal acts of collaboration punishable under Article 4 of Decree Law 25475,” for having agreed to serve as legal defense counsel 186 I/A Court H.R., Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, paragraph 56; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne V. Chile. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, paragraph 92. 187 I/A Court H.R., Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, paragraph 56. 188 IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/SER.L/V/II.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1, corr., October 22, 2002, paragraph 3. See also, IACHR, Ten Years of Activities, 1971-1981, at 339; Case 11.182, Report No. 49/00, Asencios Lindo et al. (Peru), Annual Report of the IACHR 2000, paragraph 58. 189 IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/SER.L/V/II.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1, corr., October 22, 2002, paragraph 4.