22 86.8 The Office of the Special Military Prosecutor was informed of the detention of Jaime Francisco Castillo Petruzzi, María Concepción Pincheira Sáez, Lautaro Enrique Mellado Saavedra and Alejandro Luis Astorga Valdez on October 18, 1993.27 86.9 It was DINCOTE that determined what the legal classification of the crime allegedly committed by the detainees was. That classification determined military jurisdiction in this case. Military courts, with “faceless” judges presiding, tried Castillo Petruzzi, Pincheira Sáez, Mellado Saavedra, Astorga Valdez and other defendants on the charge of treason. The alleged victims were turned over to the FAP’s Special Military Prosecutor on November 17, 1993. Based on the police investigations conducted by DINCOTE, on November 18, 1993, the Special Military Prosecutor charged the detainees with the crime of treason, under Decrees-Laws Nos. 25,659 and 25,475.28 86.10 When the charge is treason, procedure calls for a summary proceeding “in the theater of operations,” before “faceless” judges. Actions seeking judicial guarantees are not permitted.29 86.11 Defense counsel for Mr. Astorga Valdez filed for two writs of habeas corpus: the first to get the court’s permission for the defense attorney to visit him in the Castro Castro Prison, and the second to get the court to agree to allow relatives to visit him at Yanamayo Prison.30 Both petitions were denied. 86.12 Alejandro Astorga Valdez, Lautaro Mellado Saavedra, María Concepción Pincheira Sáez and Jaime Francisco Castillo Petruzzi remain incarcerated to body search done on Alejandro Luis Astorga Valdez on October 14, 1993, pp. 314-316; record of the body search done on María Concepción Pincheira Sáez on October 14, 1993, pp. 319-322; physical-chemical analysis of the property, October 22, 1993, pp. 74 and 448-453; record of the search of the residence of María Concepción Pincheira Sáez and of Lautaro Enrique Mellado Saavedra on October 14, 1993, pp. 329347; record of the search of the residence of Jaime Francisco Castillo Petruzzi on October 15, 1993, pp. 352-357, all of which are part of police investigation report No. 225-DINCOTE-II-DIVICOTE, file No. 078 TP 93 ZJ FAP. 27. Cf. Official Document No. 529-DIVICOTE II-DINCOTE, mentioned in police investigation report No. 225 DIVICOTE-II-DINCOTE, file No. 078-TP-93-L, p. 14. 28. Cf. Official Document No. 10525-DIVICOTE-DINCOTE, pp. 538-539; notice of prosecution from the Prosecutor for the Special Military Court, dated November 18, 1993, pp. 564-567, police investigation report No. 225-DIVICOTE-II-DINCOTE, both from file No. 078-TP-93-L; Article 13.a of Decree No. 25,475) and Decree-Law No. 25,659 (crime of treason). 29. Cf. Articles 1 and 3 of Decree-Law No. 25,708 (rules governing proceedings in treason trials, requiring a summary proceeding under the Military Code of Justice in all such trials), which entered into force on September 10, 1992; articles 710 to 724 of the Code of Military Justice, Decree-Law No. 23,214 of July 24, 1980, and Article 13 of Decree-Law No. 25,475, May 5, 1992. 30. Cf. Articles 6 and 38 of Decree-Law No. 23,506 (Habeas Corpus and Amparo Act), promulgated on December 7, 1982; Article 22 of the Regulations of the Habeas Corpus and Amparo Act, Supreme Decree No. 024-90-JUS and Article 16.a of Decree-Law No. 25,398 (law that supplements the provisions of Law 23,506 on the matter of Habeas Corpus and Amparo), promulgated on February 6, 1992, and published in El Peruano on February 9, 1992; Article 6 of Decree-Law No. 25,659; Article 6.4 of DecreeLaw No. 26,248 of November 12, 1993; testimony of defense attorney Gloria Cano Legua (transcript of the public hearing held on November 15, 1998).