E/CN.4/1999/63/Add.2 page 24 valued in legal writings and by human rights defenders, it is also stated that this right cannot be suspended during states of emergency. The law allows it to be invoked even when imprisonment is ordered by a judge. 126. Habeas corpus was suspended until 25 November 1993 for persons arrested for the offences of terrorism or treason. It was restored by Act No. 26.248 with restrictions: only a judge specializing in terrorism, where such exists, can try such cases; the petitioner must be identified; the petitioner may not challenge the jurisdiction of the court; and other, similar, restrictions. 127. The Working Group regrets that there are judges who continued to apply the prohibition after it was repealed: the action on behalf of the lawyers Ernesto Messa, Carlos Gamero, Luis Ramón, Teófilo Bendezú and Freddy Huaraz was thrown out on the basis of the repealed Act (15 December 1997, case No. 287-97-HC, Judge Percy Escobar, upheld by the Provisional Corporative Chamber Specializing in Public Law). 128. Other limitations on the effectiveness of habeas corpus result from the refusal of military courts to give due regard to decisions of the civil courts. The Working Group was of the opinion that the detention of Gustavo Adolfo Cesti, ordered by the military court in contravention of a release order contained in a habeas corpus action, was arbitrary (Opinion No. 18/1997). General Rodolfo Robles told the Working Group that he was not released by the military court as ordered by the ruling in the legal protection action handed down by Judge Elba Minaya because it was considered that the ruling would interfere with military affairs. The same judge said that, in another situation, she had tried official habeas corpus proceedings in DINCOTE premises and ordered the release of a detainee. As a result criminal action was taken against her on charges of violence, resisting authority in violation of judicial functions and terrorism (Ministerial decision of 7 July 1997). Judges in the Public Law Chamber of the Lima High Court who accepted legal protection actions against military courts were also accused of obstructing justice. 129. The remedy of habeas corpus, which is regarded under the Constitution as a human right, is available against all authorities. The Working Group considers that the interpretation of military courts which considers this remedy to be available only when deprivation of liberty is challenged before a civil court to be without any legal basis. 130. The Working Group regrets that Legislative Decree No. 900, which amends the law on habeas corpus, gives sole jurisdiction in such actions to judges specialized in public law, for ordinary offences known as “aggravated terrorism”. 2. Nullum crimen sine lege 131. Article 11, paragraph 2, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed”, a rule which is repeated in article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This is the principle of legality.