E/CN.4/1999/63/Add.2 page 11 Apparently, the intention was to allow the application of the death penalty for terrorist offences, as Peru has been a party to the American Convention on Human Rights since 28 July 1978, i.e. since before the adoption of the 1979 Constitution, and the Convention allows the death penalty for treason.4 In the opinion of the Working Group, this is an obvious misuse of terms for purposes contrary to those of criminal law. 50. A number of foreigners have been convicted of treason, apparently on the basis of article 78 of the Code of Military Justice, which provides that this offence can be committed by “any Peruvian by birth or naturalization or any person in any way under the jurisdiction of the laws of Peru”. General Guido Guevara, President of the Supreme Council of Military Justice (CSJM), said that “it is a fallacy that treason cannot be committed by foreigners. If it was committed in Peru, then the Peruvian courts have jurisdiction to try the case. The easiest cases to try are those of treason committed by foreigners”. 51. The extreme vagueness of the Act has caused serious conflicts of jurisdiction, which have led to unacceptable trial delays, as a well-known report, which had a great impact in the country, warned in 1993, stating that “Since the offences of terrorism and treason can easily be confused, it is very possible that a case may be assigned to the wrong court and that inappropriate sentences may be imposed”. 5 The Working Group has been notified of cases in which the accused was twice declared innocent, each time by both courts, before finally being released, whereas in other cases, the individual was acquitted for an act defined in one way by the police only to be convicted later for another offence arising from the same set of facts. In the case of María Elena Loayza Tamayo, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights stated that this procedure is contrary to the principle non bis in idem. 6 52. In previous reports (E/CN.4/1993/24, para. 32, E/CN.4/1994/27, para. 63, and E/CN.4/1995/31, para. 51), the Working Group, although not specifically referring to Peru, warned that one of the main causes of arbitrary detentions was the vague definition of “treason”. 53. The Decree-Law penalizes other behaviour such as particular types of association with criminal intent and the offence of endangering others, which do not necessarily have to give rise to any specific harm. Being a member of an armed group with responsibility for killing people is thus deemed to be treason, even if no one is killed. 3. Subsequent laws 54. More than 15 other laws have been promulgated, justified, it is claimed, by the fight against terrorism, and which have led to arbitrary detentions. Some of the most heavily criticized are: the “Repentance” Act, No. 25.499, later repealed; the Act on the Criminal Responsibility of Minors Aged between 15 and 18 Years, also repealed; and Decree-Law No. 25.708, on summary proceedings in the theatre of operations in cases of treason. A particularly well-known law was Act No. 25.880, which made it treasonable for teachers to “influence” their students by “defending” terrorism, thus not only making the definition of criminal offences even vaguer, but also directly affecting