Assessing Damage, Urging Action distorted voice recorder. The accused was severely impaired in his/her ability to mount an effective defence, often suffering from prolonged incommunicado detention, and limited access to evidence and counsel. Many defendants were convicted on the basis of evidence obtained as a result of coercion, or unsubstantiated statements of individuals seeking to take advantage of a law offering amnesty in return for “repentance”.44 These grossly unfair trials, mounted against those suspected of terrorism (defined very loosely), resulted in the conviction of hundreds of innocent persons.45 The Government installed provisional judges and prosecutors, effectively using the justice system as an arm of government in defeating the “enemy”. The same role was required of the judiciary in the 1970s and 1980s in the Southern Cone. The results of these limitations on due process rights were well documented by the Peruvian Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which noted: “The TRC has established that strict and uncritical application of the 1992 antiterrorist legislation undermined the guarantee of impartiality and accuracy in trials of detainees. Not only did hundreds of innocent persons have to endure long sentences, but due process violations cast a heavy shadow of doubt over the trials that took place. The discredit suffered by the Peruvian judicial system during the Fujimori regime proved to be a boon for the true subversives when, years later, the State had to retry them on the basis of scant evidence. Additionally, those sentenced for terrorism suffered prison conditions that were degrading to human dignity, and that in no way led to their rehabilitation.” 46 It has been argued, in Peru and elsewhere, that resort to the excessive use of force and special criminal courts and procedures were necessary to suppress the serious threat of terrorism. However, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission suggests that the success in defeating Sendero Luminoso 47 was in part due to a changed strategy in the armed forces that promoted better relations with the local population,48 and the capture of its charismatic leader Abimael Guzman Reinoso. The capture 44 Truth and Reconciliation Commission, op. cit., General Conclusions No.126 “The situation worsened after the 1992 coup because of characteristics of the new anti-terror legislation, which included over-criminalisation of terrorism by making the concept flexible and creating new crimes that were tried in different forums and imposed different sentences for the same conduct; lack of proportionality in sentencing, serious limitation on the ability of detainees to mount a defence; and the attribution of jurisdictions to military tribunals.” 45 See Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Peru, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106, 2 June 2000, paras. 102-120. 46 Truth and Reconciliation Commission, op cit., General Conclusions, No.130. 47 Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) was an insurgent group notably more brutal than other violent left wing groups in the Southern Cone. Following an extreme brand of Maoism, the group was highly intolerant of dissent and established a base of support among the Andean peasantry through extreme terror, but the increasingly militarised government response to Sendero Luminoso was also considered counter-productive, see Truth and Reconciliation Commission, op cit., General Conclusion No. 59. 48 Truth and Reconciliation Commission, op cit., General Conclusions, No. 60. 35