individuals identified themselves as members of the police and informed her that she was being detained in connection with the investigation of terrorist incidents. They handcuffed her and covered her head with her jacket. The author was then taken to premises which she later learned were those of the Department of Counter-Terrorism (DINCOTE). self-styled terrorist group, the Sendero Luminoso Communist Party of Peru”. More specifically, she was accused of being a member of the leadership cell of the health section, of being in charge of it and of drawing up plans for the care and examination of persons wounded in terrorist actions in metropolitan Lima. She was sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment and a fine for the offence of terrorism under articles 4 (terrorism—acts of collaboration), 5 (membership of a terrorist organization) and 6 (incitement to commit acts of terrorism) of Decree-Law No. 25475. The author claims that these definitions of offences do not apply. 2.2 The author was interrogated blindfolded. During interrogation she was threatened with the arrest of her family members and with the confiscation of her possessions and medical equipment; she was accused of treating terrorists and was hit on the head and lost consciousness. When she recovered her senses, the interrogation continued with blows, insults and threats, including the threat of rape. During the first days of her detention she was forced to remain standing for the entire day. 2.7 On 3 September 1997 the author filed a petition for annulment with the Supreme Court, contending that the conviction was based on legislation—Decree-Law No. 25475 of 5 May 1992—which had not been in force when the acts with which she was charged allegedly took place, that is, between 1987 and the early months of 1992. At that time, the legislation applicable was the Criminal Code and Act No. 24953, which punished offences against the public peace/terrorism with maximum sentences of 15 and 25 years respectively for the alleged offence of association. In addition, pretrial investigations were initiated against her for allegedly being an accessory to the offence of terrorism but she was convicted on a different charge, namely, that of being a “middle level cadre” of Sendero Luminoso. On 29 September 1997 the Court rejected the petition. Neither the author nor her counsel were notified of the judgement. 2.3 The police searched her home and claimed to have found a document establishing a link between her and the Sendero Luminoso terrorist organization. The author asserts that this document did not belong to her. She was accused of having treated “subversives” and coerced medical colleagues into doing the same. She was also urged under threat to denounce other persons who had allegedly “forced her” to perform those acts. 2.4 The author remained in solitary confinement for seven days, following which the police report was prepared. It concluded that the author was guilty of the offence of terrorism. On 24 February 1993 Lima’s provincial criminal prosecutor No. 14 drew up a charge against the author, accusing her of being a member of “the subversive organization the Sendero Luminoso Communist Party of Peru, in the health section of the People’s Aid Association, as an activist, trainer, organizer of support and contact”. She was remanded in custody. On the same date the judge initiated pretrial proceedings and ordered her to be detained. 2.8 In October 1997, the author’s father sought a pardon from the President of the Republic under Act No. 26655. Under this Act an ad hoc commission had been set up to propose that the President should grant a pardon to persons sentenced for the offence of terrorism contrary to fundamental standards of justice. 2.9 During the first few years of her detention in Chorrillos Maximum Security Prison, even before being convicted, the author was held in a cell 2.5 metres square, shared with five or six persons simultaneously, where she remained all day except for half an hour in the yard. During her periods in the yard she could not talk to other inmates. She did not have access to reading and writing materials. Her visiting rights were restricted to two immediate relatives per month for a total of 30 minutes in multi-person visiting rooms and without physical contact. The food was inadequate. As a result of all of this she had health problems and began to suffer from bruxism, facial paralysis, dermatitis, aggravated myopia, bronchial symptoms, etc. 2.5 The author was tried for an offence against the public peace/terrorism by the Special Criminal Division for terrorist affairs of the High Court of Lima (a “faceless” or concealed identity division), under Decree-Law No. 25475 of 5 May 1992, which established this offence. On 2 March 1994 the Division handed down a judgement sentencing the author to 20 years’ imprisonment. The sentence was appealed and declared void by the Supreme Court on 8 June 1995, on the grounds that there had been irregularities in the proceedings in breach of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2.6 On 16 October 1995 a new oral hearing took place before the Special (faceless) Criminal Division of the High Court of Lima, accusing the author of “being a member of the so-called health section of the department of support of the Peruvian People’s Aid Association, one of the central bodies of the 2.10 The author maintains that she was subjected to the regime under Decree-Law No. 25475, in accordance with which: 103