E/CN.4/1999/63/Add.2 page 20 responsible for the most serious crimes or to those who took part in offences which caused loss of human life. It requires that the statement made by the repenter must be proven. 98. The beneficiary is guaranteed that his identity will remain secret, as well as a change of identity, maximum measures to ensure his safety and physical integrity, welfare benefits and the extension of these benefits to his family. 99. The Act extended these benefits to peasants captured by terrorist groups and forced by threats to participate in terrorist activities. In 1993 these benefits were further extended to those involved in treason. The Act was abrogated on 1 November 1994 by Act No. 26.345. 100. According to the Act's Evaluation Commission, 8,390 persons benefited from the Act and most of them are now apparently at liberty. Nevertheless, in August 1997, 378 of them were still prisoners. 101. The Working Group notes that legislation concerning repentance of members of subversive groups is not directly contrary to international human rights instruments, but, as the Group saw in Peru, the risks of abuse the implementation of such legislation entails are considerable, since it gave rise to the phenomenon of “innocent prisoners”. 102. Genuine repenters interviewed in Picsi claimed that promises of freedom had not been kept. Others said that they felt “cheated because the guarantees offered are not respected, as in the case of Crisanto Tiquillahuanca, who was murdered by militants of Shining Path”. Although the repenters who are still in prison are isolated from the militants, they run the risk of being identified by their former comrades. 103. Peasants convicted of crimes which they were forced to commit protested that they had not received what they had been offered. According to the Ombudsman, this is because their situation was regarded as being cases of repentance and, as such, subject to the established administrative or legal procedures, and not, as the peasants thought, as cases not involving criminal responsibility or, consequently, punitive prosecution (Ombudsman's decision No. 040/97/DP). 104. However, the main complaints come from the victims of the repenters' testimonies. NGOs in Chiclayo said that in Chulucanas, one repenter was responsible for denouncing more than 200 persons, all were arrested, and they in turn denounced others. It was said that, in one case alone, No. 117/93, charges were brought against more than 80 persons as a result of denunciations by repenters. There was so much lying that 60 of them were freed; other examples were also cited. One well-known lawyer stated that “many members of the Shining Path gave out names in a completely irresponsible way, naming union members, journalists, local leaders, and all of them were imprisoned”, since, “to justify its existence, DINCOTE forced detainees to repent for practically anything”. One lawyer said that even the titles of the “leaders” - who attract the harshest penalties - were false: “On recruitment, they name the military chief, the civilian chief, etc., and, in the end, those