E/CN.4/1999/63/Add.2 page 14 66. The Government explained that the anonymity of judges was for their protection, as several of them were said to have been assassinated between 1983 and 1994. The Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers reported that, “from 1992 to 1997, judges were not targets of the terrorist-related violence” (ibid., para. 74). The Government also repeatedly reported that the legislation was provisional and that it was repealed as a result of the success of the pacification process. 67. The Working Group received complaints that the system was a source of injustices: one person sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment said that the voice distorters “only made noise. I never heard the questions; I asked them to repeat them for me, but I don't know whether they did so” (Margarita Chiquiure, Santa Monica Prison, quoted by permission). 68. The Working Group understands that the State must protect its judges so that they can act without fear of reprisals. Only in this way can the right of the person on trial to be tried by an independent and impartial judge be respected. However, the Group also believes that such an exceptional and disproportionate measure - to use the words of Supreme Court judge Carlos Ernesto Giusti, killed during the rescue of hostages from the Japanese Ambassador's residence - should be accompanied by adequate safeguards and controls in order to ensure a fair trial and to establish the responsibility of the judges. Otherwise, the requirements of article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights would not be met, as stated by the Human Rights Committee in its preliminary observations (CCPR/C/79/Add.67), its concluding observations (CCPR/C/79/Add.72), and in its views on the communication concerning Victor Polay Campos (No. 577/1994). 3. (a) Changes in criminal procedure Civilian courts (i) The police investigation 69. As Ronald Gamarra maintains, trials for terrorism are based on the principles of exceptionality, summariness and secrecy. 8 Proceedings are summary (investigations lasting not more than 50 days, trial lasting up to 15 days, proceedings before the Supreme Court lasting up to 15 days), with both automatic imprisonment and a prohibition on release during the investigation; trial in camera; limitation on the equal treatment of evidence; excessive weighting of the police investigation; restriction of the rights of the defence; until 1997, anonymity of judges; and lack of responsibility for legal actions and sentences. 70. In principle, the preliminary investigation should be the responsibility of the Office of the Public Prosecutor, in conformity with article 159 of the 1993 Constitution; the police should only carry out its orders. Nevertheless, Decree-Law 25.475 provides that, in the investigation of terrorist offences, it is the responsibility of the National Police of Peru “to conduct the police investigation” and, if it is not able to do so, then the Armed Forces should. The law orders the National Anti-Terrorism Department (DINCOTE) to guarantee