DISSENTING IN PART OPINION OF AD HOC JUDGE JORGE SANTISTEVAN DE NORIEGA IN THE CASE OF GARCÍA-ASTO AND RAMÍREZ-ROJAS The duties that, in my view, an Ad Hoc Judge in an International Court must perform I. In exercising international judicial functions, as an Ad Hoc Judge of this Court, I have endeavored to bring intimate knowledge to the distinguished judges who are members of the Court on the law in force in the country whose State is on trial, and on the practices that within its framework are being developed in order to make them compatible with the provisions of the American Convention and the Peruvian Constitution itself. Therefore, in the short but fruitful time that I have had the privilege to exercise such duty, I have set myself to share with the members of the Court the characteristics of the legal system that, amidst the democratic transition, governs the delicate situation of those persons who are on trial for crimes related to terrorist activities under similar circumstances to the two cases giving rise to this judgment. It should be noted that, in situations such as those regarding the victims in the instant case, the events in Peru took place a long time ago and those involved did not have, for a decade, access to fair trials under the previous regime, which imposed war justice, repeatedly condemned by international human rights bodies for the protection of human rights and by the different tiers of the State of Peru itself as soon as they were able to exercise their duties with sufficient autonomy and freedom. 1 With respect to Article 9 of the American Convention, the Court must take into account that the Decisions on Constitutionality rendered by the Constitutional Court of Peru have binding force and are part of the law of the land, and II. In the context of the foregoing paragraph, I tried to convey to the members of the Court the importance of the Decision on Constitutionality delivered by the Constitutional Court of Peru on January 3, 2003 in Case No. 010-2002AI/TC within the Peruvian legal system, given that it is part of domestic law, pursuant to the provisions of Article 9 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Indeed, I explained how, within the framework of the centralized judicial review system adopted by the Supreme Law of Peru, the decisions rendered by the Constitutional Court on constitutionality have the force of law and, consequently, become part of the legal system and are binding not only upon the judiciary but upon all State authorities as well, pursuant to the provisions of Article 204 of the Constitution, in line with Article 200(4) thereof and Article 35 of the Constitutional Court Organic Act No. 26.435. 1 See OMBUDSMAN’S OFFICE, Reports No. 9 of 1998 and No. 71 of 2003 concerning issues related to this matter at www.ombudsman.gob.pe