6 above, I fully agree with the views expressed by legal experts 6 -which in turn are in line with the decision of the majority of the Court, based on the consideration set forth in paragraph 194 of this judgment- insofar as, this way, the basic definition of the crime establishes the elements of the criminalized conduct in a manner such that they may be distinguished from acts which are either not punishable or punishable with non-criminal sanctions. XI. In this regard, I also fully concur with the operative part and the consideration set out in paragraph 195 of this judgment, in that the definitions of collaboration with and membership in and affiliation with a terrorist organization (Articles 4 and 5 of Decree-Law No. 25.475 and Article 322 of the Criminal Code of 1991) do not violate Article 9 of the American Convention, as per -as pointed out by the Honorable Judges- the criterion established by this Court in the Case of Lori Berenson (referred exclusively to the crime of collaboration), given that both definitions establish the elements of the criminalized conduct in a manner such that they may be distinguished from acts which are either not punishable or punishable with non-criminal sanctions. Some elements of the Decision on Constitutionality and of the Decision adopted by the Supreme Court of Peru that, in my opinion, are missing in the Judgment rendered by the Inter-American Court to which this separate opinion is appended XII. For better understanding by this Honorable Court and the legal community, especially in the field of human rights, I would have preferred a more detailed mention of the content of the Decision on Constitutionality delivered by the Constitutional Court on January 3, 2003 -and partially transcribed in this opinion- as the Court has limited itself to simply taking account thereof. XIII. Furthermore, it would have been extremely positive for this Court to admit, as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case, the content of Decision No. 3048-2004 rendered by Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru (Sala Penal Permanente de la Corte Suprema de la República del Peru) on December 21, 2004 on the action to vacate the judgment of conviction for this type of crimes filed by defendant Alfonso Abel Dueñas-Escobar. Indeed, this final judgment -(ejecutoria suprema) as we call decisions rendered by a court of last resort which, therefore, become res judicata- constitutes a precedent binding upon all Peruvian courts. 7 Once again, the ruling of the Supreme Court establishes strict interpretation 6 See. GAMARRA HERRERA, Ronald, in collaboration with Robert Meza. Terrorismo Tratamiento Jurídico (Terrorism, Legal Regulation). Lima: Instituto de Defensa Legal, 1996; and LAMARCA; Carmen, Tratamiento Jurídico del Terrorismo (Legal Regulation of Terrorism). Madrid: Centro de Publicaciones del Ministerio de Justicia, 1985. 7 In the operative part, the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru (Sala Penal Permanente de la Corte Suprema de la República) resolved: “TO ADOPT as binding precedent the legal basis set out in whereas clause number 9 of this final judgment, and to order its publication in the Peruvian Official Gazette…”