10 Although the plaintiffs had requested it, the Constitutional Court did not declare that Article 2 of Decree Law No. 25,475 defining the crime of terrorism was unconstitutional. The plaintiffs argued that this norm constituted an open definition of the crime, which could leave the door open to extensive, inappropriate interpretations that would affect the principle of legality. The Constitutional Court’s judgment established three ways of interpreting the definition of the crime of terrorism, which the expert witness considered erroneous. In this regard, the said judgment “did not clarify the real concern addressed by the action on unconstitutionality. b. Expert report of Mario Pablo Rodríguez Hurtado, lawyer On September 23, 1862, Congress adopted the drafts of the Penal Code and the Criminal Proceedings Code, which entered into force on January 2, 1863. These codes may be considered the first Peruvian texts relating to punishment, owing to their national scope. At the start of the twentieth century, a new Code of Criminal Procedure was promulgated, which adhered to the combined model, and also a Penal Code. Implementation of the codes was hindered by the need for prevention and security that gave rise to the “emergency arbitrary criminal legislation,” enacted in the 1930s and characterized by its “openly dictatorial aspect.” The 1940 Code of Criminal Procedure replaced the previous legislation, adhering to the combined model, with an investigative structure “which blended the trial activities of the judges with the task of investigation inherent in the Attorney General’s office (Ministerio Público), and place[d] significant restrictions on the full exercise of the defendant’s right to defense.” Despite this, an emergency criminal legislation continued to be implemented, characterized by its arbitrary nature and by the intervention of the country’s armed forces to suppress certain crimes against the public and social peace. In addition, imprisonment for at least 20 years and the death penalty were established and parole and release on bail were eliminated. With the onset of the transition to democracy embodied in the 1979 Constitution, it was hoped that the emergency criminal legislation would be eliminated. To the contrary, exceptions were introduced for cases of the crime of terrorism, equaling them to those of drug-trafficking and spying, so that the time permitted for detention by the police was extended. The successive Governments that have taken office since July 1980 have opted to “replicate the ancient arbitrary emergency criminal legislation,” and this situation still persists. From 1981 until May 5, 1992, the anti-terrorist legislation comprised, among other norms, Legislative Decree No. 46 of 1981 and Articles 319 to 324 of the 1991 Penal Code. Legislative Decree No. 46 “violates [the] principle of penal legality.” Furthermore, the militarization of the country was expanded by Law No. 24,150 of 1985. In subsequent years, Laws Nos. 24,651, 24,700, 24,953 and 25,301 reformed aspects related to the suppression of the crime of terrorism defined in the