The determination of the unlawful act was made by officers of the DINCOTE police, and used as a basis to determine the competent court; 2.24 (f) of the Constitution of Peru. Moreover, the legislation applied to her did not permit the judge to order the appearance of the detainee. Contrary to article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, detention in custody was the general rule, with no exceptions. Furthermore, article 6 of Decree-Law No. 25659, which restricted the possibility of filing a remedy of habeas corpus in respect of persons under investigation for the offence of terrorism, was applied to her. This was a violation of article 9, paragraph 4, of the Covenant. The appointment of defence counsel was regularly made after the police investigation had taken place; Counsel freely elected by the defendant could not have an interview with the defendant before the latter made a statement to the examining magistrate; Neither defendants nor their counsel were shown the evidence against them. Nor was the defence permitted to challenge witnesses who had made statements during the police investigation; 3.4 According to the author, the regime of deprivation of liberty applied to her on the basis of Decree-Law No. 25475 was inhumane and thus a violation of article 10 of the Covenant. It excluded, inter alia, the possibility of taking advantage of the benefits set out in the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Enforcement. It furthermore provided that it was mandatory for the sentence to be served in a maximum security prison with continuous solitary confinement during the first year of detention and imposed severe restrictions on the system of visits. Defendants had no access to any right of conditional release before the conclusion of proceedings; A special ad hoc procedure was established and applied by a judge during the investigation phase and by faceless judges during the oral hearing, whereby procedural guarantees were not admitted; 3.5 The author further asserts that article 14, paragraph 1, was violated since she was tried by faceless courts, where the identity of the judges is kept secret and objection is impossible. The DecreeLaw also lays down that both pretrial proceedings for the offence of terrorism and the oral hearing must be conducted in specially designed premises within the criminal courts. According to the author, the secret nature of the oral hearing distorts it since its public nature is its fundamental characteristic and a guarantee of fairness. Charge and evidence statements, records of hearings and judgements lacked the signature of the prosecutors and judges involved because of their faceless status; During the first year of imprisonment, a regime of continuous solitary confinement was imposed on the accused, in addition to other restrictions. 2.11 The author declares that she has not made application to any other international body with regard to the subject matter of the communication. 3.6 Article 14, paragraph 2, was also violated, since Decree-Law No. 25475 eliminated the independence of the judge and of the Public Prosecutor’s Office.1 The judge was unable to take a decision on the basis of the evidence submitted as to whether or not there were grounds for initiating the pretrial investigation: rather, the Decree “orders” the judge to initiate the investigation and issue an arrest warrant. Detention is compulsory; the judge no The complaint 3.1 The author claims that the facts described are a violation of several provisions of the Covenant. 3.2 As the author asserted in her testimony before the Criminal Court on 10 March 1993, she was subjected to physical and mental torture during her detention by DINCOTE; she was also left without food and kept in solitary confinement for seven days. All the interrogations were accompanied by blows to the head, insults, threats and psychological pressure. The solitary confinement was permitted under article 12 (d) of Decree-Law No. 25475 and was absolute, even counsel being excluded. This constitutes a form of cruel and inhuman treatment damaging to an individual’s physical, mental and moral well-being. According to the author, these facts are a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 1 Article 13: “For the investigation and trial of the terrorist offences referred to in this Decree-Law the following rules shall be observed: (a) Once the charge has been formalized by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the detainees shall be brought before the criminal judge, who shall give the order to commence investigation with an arrest warrant within a period of 24 hours, after the necessary security measures have been taken. During the investigation no form of release may be envisaged; there shall be no exceptions. (…) (d) On conclusion of the investigation, the file shall be transmitted to the President of the court in question, who shall transmit the proceedings to the chief prosecutor, who in turn shall appoint the senior prosecutor who must draw up the indictment within three days, being liable for failure to do so.” 3.3 Article 9, paragraph 1, was also violated, since the author was detained arbitrarily, without a court order and without having been caught in flagrante delicto, these being requirements of article 104