E/CN.4/1999/63/Add.2 page 23 V. THE SITUATION OF FORCED CONSCRIPTS 119. Commission resolution 1997/50 enables the Working Group to examine cases of deprivation of liberty other than “arrest” or “detention”. Such is the case of the “levies” that have frequently been reported to the Group. The term applies to forced recruitment by the Armed Forces of young men allegedly old enough to perform compulsory military service. Complaints have been made that minors under 18 years of age and even children under 15 years of age have been conscripted in this manner. Levies are made easier because subversive groups have destroyed public records, which makes it difficult to prove one's age, although cases have also been reported in which the military were the ones who destroyed the records. 120. Regrettably, in those cases in which an application for habeas corpus was filed, it was not successful (Constitutional Guarantees Court, habeas corpus on behalf of Jorge Briones. El Peruano, 22 August 1987). The judges allow only public documents as proof of age, rejecting other means such as expert witness statements. 121. The Working Group hopes that the new legislation adopted by the Peruvian Government on 9 November 1998 (Law No. 26.989 amending article 7 of the Law on Compulsory Military Service and prohibiting forced recruitment) will put an end to the practice of “levies”. VI. CAUSES OF ARBITRARY DETENTION 122. The Working Group regards as arbitrary deprivations of liberty those which come within one of the categories mentioned in its terms of reference. It is recalled here that Peru is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Group did not note any cases of deprivation of liberty without any legal basis (category I of its methods of work). A. Violation of the right to freedom of expression (category II) 123. Although in principle action to combat incitement to violence is legitimate, the Working Group has dealt with prison sentences which are based on the offence of “advocating terrorism” and may be categorized as arbitrary: one person was sentenced for painting a hammer and sickle (this is not advocating terrorism or eulogizing a terrorist) on the basis of the precedent of “proceedings” for a terrorist offence (Supreme Court judgement, 20 April 1994, case No. 623-93). Another was sentenced for possession of subversive literature and the assumption that he had used it in indoctrination (Supreme Court, 30 January 1995). 124. Arbitrary arrests are carried out under Act No. 25.880 (see para. 54). B. Serious violations of the right to a fair trial (category III) 1. The right to habeas corpus 125. Habeas corpus, a right protected by article 9, paragraph 4, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is recognized in article 200 of the 1993 Constitution. In this provision, which is highly