83 d) Through the creation of the crime of collaboration with terrorism “an attempt is made to anticipate the commission of criminal acts falling within the category of terrorism, which finally leads to the criminalization of acts that, according to legal textbooks and opinions, are preparatory of said crime;” e) In order to criminally establish the existence of the crime of terrorism in any of its forms, acts of collaboration, or affiliation with a terrorist organization, it is necessary to take into consideration the basic definition of the crime of terrorism included in Article 2 of Decree-Law No. 25.475; f) Decree-Law No. 25.475 “insofar as it establishes minimum sentences without specifying the legally accepted maximum of applicable sentences, violates the ‘nulla poena, sine lege’ principle;” g) Decree-Law No. 25.475 “does not differentiate among the acts committed by the perpetrator, co-perpetrator, accessory, instigator, aider, and abettor, or doer, which made it impossible to establish punishment proportional to the degree of responsibility of the perpetrator of the crime within the subversive organization;” h) “Legislative Decree [No.] 921 of [J]anuary 2003 establish[ed] that the legally accepted maximum sentence for the crimes defined in Articles 2, 3 (b) and (c), 4, and 5 was five years more than the minimum sentence;” i) The State violated Article 9 of the Convention in relation to Article 24 thereof to the detriment of the alleged victims, inasmuch as “law-makers did not [...] include any criterion to differentiate between [those convicted of drug trafficking] and those convicted [of terrorism] when granting penal benefits;” j) Article 3 of Legislative Decree [No.] 927 provides that “the sentence may be served by working or studying, at a rate of one day of sentence for seven days of effective labor;” and k) “Article 4 of Law No. 26320 on the crime of drug trafficking” establishes [that] the sentence may be served by working or studying at a rate of one day of the sentence imposed for five days of effective labor or study. Arguments of the State 178. In relation to Article 9 of the Convention, the State expressed that: a) The Constitutional Court has remedied the objections to the so-called anti-terrorist legislation, as well as to the provisions set forth by subsequent Legislative Decrees No. 921, 922, 923, 924, 925, 926, 927; b) “The Constitutional Court did not rule on Article 319 of the Criminal Code as said Article was repealed by Article 22 of Decree-Law No. 25.475;” c) The Constitutional Court, in its Judgment of January 3, 2003, “proved that it was perfectly admissible to bring some of the challenged provisions into line with the principles underlying the Political Constitution of Peru, which is why it did not declare the basic definition of the crime of terrorism (as