2 originating in petition Nos. 12.413 and 12.423, received at the Secretariat of the Commission on November 9 and 12, 1998, in the cases of Wilson García-Asto and Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, respectively. On August 14, 2003, the Commission ordered joinder of the cases into case file No. 12.413. 2. The Commission filed the application pursuant to Article 61 of the American Convention, for the Court to determine whether the State had committed the alleged violations of human rights to the detriment of Wilson García-Asto and Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, as embodied in Articles 7(2), 7(3), 7(4), 7(5), and 7(6) (Right to Personal Liberty); 8(1), 8(2), 8(2)(f), and 8(5) (Right to Fair Trial) and 9 (Rule of freedom from ex post facto laws) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of said treaty, allegedly committed “in the context of [the] criminal proceeding[s] brought against them […] for the crime of terrorism.” Moreover, the Commission requested the Court to declare that the State had violated the obligation established in Article 2 (Duty to Adopt Domestic Provisions) of the Convention “for having adopted legal rules in violation of the American Convention and for having failed to fully adapt said rules to the rights and freedoms established in [said treaty] in relation to the crime of terrorism.” 3. The Commission stated in the application that Wilson García-Asto and Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas were detained in 1995 and 1991, respectively, by the Peruvian National Police (hereinafter “PNP” or the “National Police”) without an arrest warrant and without being in flagrante delicto. The suspects were held incommunicado and the investigation, prosecution, and trial were conducted by “faceless” prosecutors and judges under the provisions of Decree-Law No. 25.475 of May 5, 1992, and with serious restrictions and restraints to exercise their right to defense. The Commission stated that the alleged victims, in light of illegally obtained evidence and unduly weighed and assessed evidentiary items offered by the defense, were sentenced to twenty and twenty-five years’ imprisonment, respectively, as alleged "perpetrators of the crime of terrorism.” Wilson García-Asto was convicted of the crime of “terrorism” under Articles 4 and 5 of Decree-Law No. 25.475 by judgment delivered on April 18, 1996, and affirmed on July 14, 1997. Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas was convicted of the crime of “terrorism” under Articles 319 and 320 of the Criminal Code of 1991 by judgment delivered on September 30, 1994, and affirmed on August 24, 1999. 4. Furthermore, the Commission referred to judgment of January 3, 2003 delivered by the Constitutional Court of Peru on the constitutionality and unconstitutionality of certain provisions of antiterrorist laws in force in Peru. Pursuant to the foregoing, the Commission asserted that the State issued Legislative Decrees Nos. 921 to 927 in February 2003, vacating the condemnatory judgments, the prosecution's case and certain aspects of the proceedings instituted against Wilson García-Asto and Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas. Nevertheless, the Commission considered that some of the violations committed in the first trial still persisted in the new proceedings and stated that, even though the State had amended antiterrorist laws as from 2003, in the instant case said amendments “ha[d] not redressed the violations suffered by the [alleged] victims, but rather ha[d] made them to prevail.” Moreover, the Commission pointed out in the application that “Wilson García-Asto and Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas ha[d] been held in custody since their detention, that is, for nine and thirteen years, respectively.”