responsible for recruiting doctors, organizing them and providing support activities consonant with the medical profession. The prosecutor requested a 30year prison sentence, a fine and an accessory penalty of loss of civil rights. 5.5 In accordance with the estoppel principle enshrined in international law, the State is precluded from invoking its own acts. Consequently, it cannot contend that the author did not exhaust domestic remedies. In a recent judgement of 18 November 2004 handed down in the case of De la Cruz Flores, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights stated that a new trial was not sufficient to make reparation for violations of due process. 4.4 The author’s case is pending in the National Terrorism Division in the context of new criminal proceedings instituted in accordance with the new anti-terrorist legislation. The State party therefore considers that domestic remedies have not been exhausted and that the communication should be declared inadmissible. 5.6 The author says that she has been detained for approximately 12 years, accused but not sentenced, in violation of article 9 of the Covenant. In July 2002, she applied to be granted semi-liberty, but this was declared inadmissible, initially by the Twentyeighth Provincial Criminal Court of Lima and subsequently by the High Court, on the grounds that the period of detention under the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been completed, in that it ran as from the date of the order to commence investigation, i.e., 21 March 2003. The State party thus ignored the period spent by the author in prison due to its failure to ensure her fair trial. In other words, the State invokes its own acts in order to deny the author her right to trial within a reasonable time or to release, as article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant requires. The author’s comments 5.1 The author states that she is being tried for the second time for the same acts, as a result of her quest for justice. A new trial, however, is not adequate reparation in cases of the violation of due process, particularly when this is owing to an act on the part of the State challenged. 5.2 This communication was submitted to the Committee when the author was serving a sentence resulting from a criminal trial against her in total violation of due process; this situation has been acknowledged by the Peruvian judiciary, which pronounced admissible the remedy of habeas corpus filed on her behalf in a decision in first instance on 2 December 2002 and in second instance on 15 January 2003. Furthermore, Legislative Decree No. 926, which provides for the annulment of trials by ordinary courts for the offence of terrorism, is accompanied by express State acknowledgement of the violation of due process and judicial guarantees, and hence of the right to liberty of persons detained, tried and sentenced for the offence of terrorism. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 5.3 The lack of precision in the definition of the offence of terrorism in article 2 of Decree-Law No. 25475 is incompatible with the principle of legality enshrined in the Covenant, since the acts comprising the offence were described in the abstract and imprecisely, so that it is impossible to know exactly what specific behaviour constitutes this criminal offence. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, in compliance with the provisions of article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol. 6.3 With regard to the requirement of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee takes note of the State party’s assertion that the case is pending in the National Terrorism Division in the context of new criminal proceedings instituted in accordance with the new anti-terrorist legislation, and that, consequently, domestic remedies have not been exhausted. The Committee is pleased to observe the amendment of several procedural and penal rules of anti-terrorist legislation, particularly those that permit the annulment of proceedings for the offence of terrorism conducted before judges and prosecutors whose identity has been concealed and establish that criminal proceedings for the offence of terrorism will be conducted in accordance with the ordinary procedures for which the Code of Criminal Procedure provides. With reference, however, to 5.4 The author asserts that she was accused of having treated and supplied medicines to “terrorists” and their family members. Not only are these two acts not illegal, they are lawful and ethically correct. The acts of participation in a surgical operation, treatment and provision of medicines do not form part of the crime of terrorism. A state of anxiety or terror is neither provoked, created nor maintained, deliberately or involuntarily, by medical acts, nor can they be assimilated to acts injurious to life, physical integrity, health or individual freedom and safety or to State or private property, nor do they constitute an attack on public or private safety. 106