17 79. This regime remained in place until January 3, 2003, when a series of provisions contained in the terrorism decree laws enacted during the administration of Alberto Fujimori were ruled unconstitutional by the 41 Constitutional Court of Peru. 80. For the definition of the crime of terrorism, the Constitutional Court upheld Article 2 of Decree Law No. 25475 but restricted its application to cases of willfulness and said that the definition had to include the following text: “intentionally provoking, creating, or maintaining anxiety, alarm, and fear in the public, or a sector 42 thereof (…).” The Constitutional Court also established certain interpretative parameters for defining an action as the offense described in the provision in question. 4. Substantive Issues Regarding the Repentance Law and its Regulations 81. According to Article 1 of the Repentance Law, its benefits were available to “those who participated or were involved in the commission of the crimes set forth in Decree Law No. 25475,” who could enjoy the waiver of punishment in two situations: II.A Exemption from sentencing: a. When a person involved in a terrorist crime, whether facing a criminal trial or not, voluntarily provides timely, truthful information revealing details of terrorist groups or organizations and their operations, the identities of their leaders, heads, chiefs, and/or main members, and future actions for their prevention or neutralization. Statements shall be given to the police, in the presence of a representative of the Public Prosecution Service or before the judge in the proceedings, as applicable. If the person or persons are not subject to a police investigation or criminal trial, their statements shall necessarily be given to the Provincial Prosecutor or Senior Prosecutor in any location of the Republic. On an exceptional basis, in areas declared under states of emergency or states of siege, the statements referred to in the previous paragraph may be given to the authorities of the Political/Military Command with a representative of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in attendance. b. When the agent informs the police or judicial authority of a threat situation that would allow harm to be prevented. 82. Article 6 of the Regulations to the Repentance Law (Supreme Decree No. 015-93-JUS) provided that: The benefit of punishment exemption shall apply to individuals, whether involved in a criminal trial for terrorist crimes or not, who voluntarily provide timely and truthful information revealing details of terrorist groups or organizations and their functions and fully identifying the leaders, heads, chiefs, and/or main members of the organization, together with the arrest thereof, preventing or neutralizing future terrorist actions, or informing the police or judicial authority of a threat situation that would allow harm to be prevented. 83. For the procedure to be followed in cases in which an individual sought the benefits of the Repentance Law, Articles 9 and 11 of the Regulations stated that they must “report voluntarily” to give statements, which must be set down in official records, before any of the following authorities: (a) police; (b) provincial prosecutor; (c) senior prosecutor; (d) criminal judge, mixed-jurisdiction judge, or justice of the peace; (e) military 41 Resolution of the Constitutional Court of January 3, 2003, Case No. 010-2002-AI/TC, unconstitutionality suit brought by Marcelino Tineo Silva and other citizens. 42 Resolution of the Constitutional Court of January 3, 2003, Case No. 010-2002-AI/TC, unconstitutionality suit brought by Marcelino Tineo Silva and other citizens. Justification 65.