4 14. The Commission claims in its application that: a. On February 6, 1993, María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, a Peruvian citizen and a professor at the Universidad San Martín de Porres, was arrested together with a relative, Ladislao Alberto Huamán-Loayza, by officers of the National Anti-Terrorism Bureau (DINCOTE) of the Peruvian National Police, while visiting the construction site of a property she owned on Mitobamba Street, Block D, Lot 18, Urbanización Los Naranjos, Distrito de los Olivos, Lima, Peru. The police officers did not produce an arrest warrant issued by a court or any order from a competent authority. The arrest was based on a charge made to the police authorities by Angélica Torres García, alias “Mirtha,” that María Elena Loayza-Tamayo was a collaborator of the subversive group Shining Path [Sendero Luminoso]. The Supreme Court of Military Justice acquitted Ladislao Alberto Huamán-Loayza of the crime of treason and he was released in November 1993. b. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo was detained by the DINCOTE from February 6 to 26, 1993. During that period she was held incommunicado for ten days and subjected to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and unlawful pressure. All this was done for the purpose of forcing her to incriminate herself and confess that she was a member of the Peruvian Communist Party-Shining Path (PCP-SL). Despite this, the victim not only declared her innocence, denying membership of the PCP-SL, but “criticized its methods: the violence and the human rights violations committed by that subversive group.” On March 3, she was transferred to the Chorrillos Women's Maximum Security Prison and, according to the Commission, was still incarcerated in Peru on the date the application was filed. c. During those ten days she was allowed no contact with her family or her attorney, nor were they informed of her arrest. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo's family learned of her arrest through an anonymous telephone call on February 8, 1993. No protective remedy could be filed on her behalf because Decree Law No. 25.659 (Counter-Insurgency Law) prohibited the filing of “a petition of habeas corpus when the acts in question concern the crime of terrorism.” d. On February 26, 1993, María Elena Loayza-Tamayo was exhibited to the press, dressed in a striped gown, and accused of the crime of treason against her country. The Police Report specified that the crime was treason and the next day her case was brought before the Special Naval Court for trial. A number of judicial proceedings were instituted before the organs of the Peruvian domestic jurisdiction. She was tried by the Military Court for the crime of treason against her country: the Special Naval Court composed of “faceless military judges” acquitted her; the Special Naval War Council found her guilty on appeal; a petition for nullification was filed and the Supreme Council of Military Justice acquitted her of that crime and ordered that the records be forwarded to the regular courts. In that jurisdiction she was tried for the crime of terrorism: the Forty-third Criminal Court of Lima bound her over for trial; the “faceless Special Tribunal of the regular court system,” on the basis of the very same facts and charges, sentenced her to 20 years imprisonment. A petition was filed with the Supreme Court of Justice seeking nullification of the court's ruling, but was rejected.