12 “The anti-terrorist legislation is an integral part of the emergency criminal legislation and [...] was inspired by concepts of prevention or extreme security, which were even incompatible with the 1993 Constitution.” The Constitutional Court of Peru delivered a judgment on January 3, 2003, in which it referred to Decree Law No. 25,475 and declared that only some of its articles were unconstitutional. In the case of Article 2 of this Decree Law, which was not declared unconstitutional, it is not possible that such a badly drafted penal text, aimed at encompassing a maximum number of behaviors, can be considered a norm “that allows the citizen to know the content of the prohibition, so that he can differentiate between what is prohibited and what is permitted.” Conclusion No. 78 bis of the judgment “does not correct the defects of the definition examined, because, even though it refers to the concurrence of the three objective elements, or ‘categories’ of the classification [...], in addition to the intention, there is still the problem of whether we are faced with a plurality of acts or with a single behavior and its material result or its motive or purpose, complementing the dolus.” In some of the conclusions of its judgment, the Constitutional Court reinterprets the prohibition to “propose as witnesses [those persons who] prepared the police deposition” and does not declare this to be unconstitutional. In relation to the previous point, the appropriate decision would have been to eliminate “a provision that was defective from its inception” and “to promote its replacement by norms that state explicitly what is required by a democratic procedural and substantive criminal law.” The legislative decrees against terrorism, Nos. 921 to 927 of January and February 2003, promulgated to give effect to the Constitutional Court’s judgment of January 3, 2003, have not overcome the basic objections to the anti-terrorist legislation. The new legislative decrees are limited to establishing “maximum penalties” and to empowering the National Terrorism Chamber to review certain judgments in which Article 2 of Decree Law No. 25,475 had been applied. The current counterterrorism laws, composed of Law No. 25,475 and other complementary decrees, “are derivations of the [Peruvian] emergency criminal legislation.” The solution to this problem is to replace the legislation in force by laws that take into account public security and order, but also respect for “human dignity, the fundamental rights, and the penal and procedural guarantees to which any individual faced with criminal charges or accusations has a right.” 50. On June 8, 2004, the Inter-American Commission forwarded the sworn statements made before notary public (affidavits) of María Teresa De La Cruz Flores and Abdón Segundo Salazar Morán (supra para. 27), in accordance with the President’s request in the order of May 19, 2004 (supra para. 23).10 The Court will now summarize the relevant part of these statements: 10 Cf. file of appendixes to the brief answering the application and affidavits, folios 807 to 827.