18 85. At the public hearing (supra 48), the Court heard testimony from the following witnesses offered by the Commission. Their testimony is summarized in the paragraphs that follow: a. Testimony of Gloria Cano, defense counsel for Mr. Astorga Valdez Treason should apply only to nationals and those under the protection of Peruvian law. She felt intimidated as Mr. Astorga Valdez’ attorney, particularly because of the way she was treated as she was being taken to the Las Palmas Base on the day her client was brought before the “faceless” military judge for the preliminary hearing in the criminal trial. At that preliminary hearing, her client, who was in a hood and restraints for security reasons, managed to tell her only that he had not been represented by counsel during the investigation by the National Counter-Terrorism Bureau (hereinafter “DINCOTE”). By the time she was able to confer with the alleged victim, the lower court’s ruling had already been delivered. At the preliminary hearing, she was not informed of the charges against her client and was not shown the case file, leaving her with no means to put on a defense. Despite repeated requests, she did not have access to the case file –which consisted of some one thousand pages- until the day before the lower-court ruling was read. Once she was given access to the case file, she was allowed to consult it for only about an hour, together with the attorneys representing the other defendants in the case. She had to prepare and argue her case before the Military Judge of Inquiry that same day, only one day before that judge would read the finding of the court of first instance. Given all this, she felt that the judge never took her defense arguments into account. In summary proceedings in military courts that prosecute crimes of this type, the defense attorney is not given sufficient time to review the evidence and examine the charges, either before or after the preliminary hearing, and is not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses or any DINCOTE officers who took part in the investigation, and therefore has no opportunity to present evidence for the defense. In Mr. Astorga’s case, after the military courts of first and second instance had granted his attorney’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, a motion from the other co-defendants to have the lower courts’ decision nullified on the basis of procedural error, and then the introduction of the testimony of a new witness for the prosecution, resulted in Mr. Astorga’s conviction and a sentence of life imprisonment. The defense attorney was never given a copy of that witness’ statement. She filed for a writ of habeas corpus and a motion for review of the judgment, but both were denied. Once the high court had entered a judgment of conviction and the motion filed with the Supreme Court of Military Justice seeking review had been denied, the defendant was held incommunicado for one year in the Yanamayo Prison. In that first year, no visitation was allowed; thereafter the family was permitted to visit him for one hour each week. The witness’ visits with Mr. Astorga as his defense counsel were subject to certain restrictions. Her performance as Mr. Astorga’s defense attorney was not effective, owing to the difficulties described here. Nevertheless, she stayed with the case in order not to leave Mr. Astorga without benefit of defense counsel. Attorneys who