23 for the crime of terrorism; that on October 8, 1993, the Forty-third Criminal Court of Lima initiated the proceedings; that on October 10, 1994, the faceless Special Tribunal of the civil court system sentenced her to twenty years in prison, and on October 6, 1995, the Supreme Court of Justice upheld that sentence (cf. Order of the Forty-third Criminal Court of Lima of October 8, 1993; judgment of October 10, 1994, of the faceless Special Tribunal of the civil court system, and judgment of October 6, 1995, of the Supreme Court of Justice). i. That military justice is also meted out to civilians in Peru; that Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo was tried in both the military and the civil court system by "faceless judges"; that it was DINCOTE that classified as unlawful the acts which were used as grounds in both jurisdictions (cf. Decree-Laws Nº 25.659 (crime of treason) and Nº 25.475 (crime of terrorism); Police Report Nº 049-DIVICOTE 3-DINCOTE of February 25, 1993, and the 1994 Report of the Task Force of the Government of Peru). j. That the military court system followed a practice of obstruction of the right of persons accused of treason to be represented by a lawyer of their own choosing (cf. Testimony of Juan Alberto Delgadillo-Castañeda, Luis Guzmán-Casas, and Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides of December 11, 1996; of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo of December 12, 1996; of Víctor Alvarez-Pérez of February 5, 1997; and expert opinion of León Carlos Arslanian of February 5, 1997; there was no freedom of choice during the pretrial investigation of Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo in the military courts; that, however, during the trial on the charge of terrorism in the civil courts, she was allowed to be represented by the attorney of her choice; access to the case file was obstructed, as was the right to free and full exercise of her right of defense (cf. Testimony of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo of February 15, 1993; testimony of Víctor Alvarez-Pérez and Iván Arturo Bazán-Chacón of February 5, 1997; expert report of León Carlos Arslanian of February 5, 1997, and Decree-Law Nº 25.475 (crime of terrorism)). k. That Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo has been continuously deprived of her freedom from February 6, 1993, up to the present (cf. Notification of detention of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo of February 6, 1993; statements of María Elena LoayzaTamayo of December 12, 1996, and of Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides of December 11, 1996; Expanded Police Report Nº 049-DIVICOTE 3-DINCOTE; Document No. 2630-DIVICOTE 3-DINCOTE of June 30, 1993, and the 1994 Report of the Task Force of the Government of Peru); that she is still incarcerated in Block "C" of the Chorrillos Women's Maximum Security Prison, where she is housed in a tiny cell, without natural light, is allowed half an hour's sunlight each day, is held in continuing isolation and subjected to highly restrictive regime of visits -even from her children-, which situation was the subject of provisional measures before this Court (cf. Judgment of October 6, 1995, of the Supreme Court of Justice; Decree-Law Nº 25.475 (crime of terrorism); official communication Nº 7-5 M/121 from Peru of April 29, 1996, and Order of September 13, 1996, of the Inter-American Court). l. That during the period when Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo was detained there was a widespread practice in Peru of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment during criminal investigations into the crimes of treason and terrorism (cf. Testimony of Juan Alberto Delgadillo-Castañeda, Luis Guzmán-Casas, Luis Alberto CantoralBenavides, and Pedro Telmo Vega-Valle of December 11, 1996; of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo of December 12, 1996; of Víctor Alvarez-Pérez and Iván Arturo Bazán-Chacón of February 5, 1997; expert report of León Carlos Arslanian;