article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee observes that the author was arrested on 16 February 1993 and subsequently tried and sentenced under Decree-Law No. 25475 of 5 May 1992, and that she filed all the appeals permitted under that legislation against her sentence, including a petition for annulment to the Supreme Court. All of this was prior to her submitting her communication to the Committee. The fact that the legislation applied to the author and on which her communication was based was declared null and void several years later cannot be considered to her disadvantage. In the circumstances, it cannot be claimed that the author should wait for the Peruvian courts to take a new decision before the Committee can consider the case under the Optional Protocol. Further, the Committee observes that the application of remedies before the Peruvian courts was initiated in 1993 and has still not been concluded. there has been a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 7.3 With regard to the author’s contentions concerning the violation of her right to liberty and security of person, the Committee considers that her arrest and detention incommunicado for seven days and the restrictions on the exercise of the right of habeas corpus constitute violations of article 9 of the Covenant as a whole. 7.4 The author contends that the regime of deprivation of liberty applied to her under DecreeLaw No. 25475 constitutes a violation of article 10 of the Covenant. The Committee considers that the conditions of detention in the Chorrillos Women’s Maximum Security Prison described by the author, particularly those applied during her first year of detention, violated her right to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of her person and therefore breached the provisions of article 10 as a whole. 6.4 The author contends that she received a harsher sentence than was appropriate under the legislation applicable at the time the alleged acts were committed, thus constituting a violation of article 15 of the Covenant. The Committee considers, however, that the author has not furnished sufficient evidence for it to take a decision with regard to this contention, and therefore considers that this part of the communication should be considered inadmissible, under article 2 of the Optional Protocol, for lack of substantiation. 7.5 With regard to the author’s complaints in relation to article 14, the Committee takes note of her allegations that the hearings at her trial were held in private and that the court comprised faceless judges who could not be challenged; that she was unable to communicate with her lawyer during the seven days she was held incommunicado; that the police officers involved in the investigation were not called as witnesses since this was not permitted under Decree-Law No. 25475; and that her lawyer was not able to challenge witnesses who had made statements during the police investigation. In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that article 14 of the Covenant, which refers to the right to a fair trial, was breached as a whole. 6.5 The Committee accordingly declares the communication admissible with regard to the alleged violations of articles 7, 9, 10 and 14 of the Covenant and proceeds to consider the merits of the complaint under article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol, bearing in mind the information provided by the parties. 8. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of articles 7, 9, 10 and 14, together with article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee regrets that the State party has not submitted observations on the merits of the case under consideration. It recalls that it may be inferred from article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol that the State party must examine in good faith all the complaints made against it and provide the Committee with all the information at its disposal. Since the State party has not cooperated with the Committee in the matters raised, the author’s claims must be given their due weight in so far as they are substantiated. 9. In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is required to furnish the author with an effective remedy and appropriate compensation. In the light of the long period she has already spent in detention and the nature of the acts of which she stands accused, the State party should give serious consideration to terminating her deprivation of liberty, pending the outcome of the current proceedings. Such proceedings must comply with all the guarantees required by the Covenant. 7.2 The author asserts that during the days she was held by DINCOTE she was subjected to torture, of which she provides details. As the State party provides no information to contradict these allegations, due weight must be given to them and it must be taken that the events occurred as described by the author. The Committee thus considers that 10. Bearing in mind that, as a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party recognizes the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant, and that, under article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has 107