99.
That same April 28, an attempt was made to obtain the preliminary statement of Ms. J.
(supra para. 98); however, the procedure was suspended “at the request of the accused who
ask[ed] to be assisted by her lawyer.” 160 On May 26, 1992, an attempt was made to continue with
the preliminary statement; nevertheless, once again the procedure was suspended “owing to the
court’s work overload [and] the late hour.” 161 On June 10, 15 and 19 and August 3, 1992, Ms. J.’s
preliminary statement was received piecemeal. 162
100. On September 9, 1992, the prosecutor indicated that “the conduct attributed to the accused
was [also] established in [article] 322 of the Criminal Code, [which typifies conspiracy to commit a
terrorist act].” In addition, he noted that “based on […] Decree-Law [25,475] other conducts were
penalized [such as] apology of terrorism. Therefore, he indicated that “it was for the jurisdictional
organ and the corresponding procedural stage” to determine “which [of the two provisions] is the
most favorable to the accused.” 163 In this regard, on October 28, 1992, the criminal judge
expanded the order to investigate the alleged crime of April 28, in order to consider Ms. J. as author
of the “offense, also against public peace – conspiracy to commit a terrorist act,” included in Article
322 of the Criminal Code. 164
101. On January 8, 1993, prosecutor No. 9288526Y filed charges against Ms. J. and another 93
persons “as perpetrators of the crime of terrorism and conspiracy to commit a terrorist act against
the State.” The prosecutor specified the acts that would be attributed to some of the accused in
relation to El Diario. However, he did not describe the acts attributed specifically to Ms. J., 165 but
merely, in general, indicated that “the other accused […] were responsible for the work of printing,
editing, distribution, and circulation of the voice [of Shining Path] El Diario; while others of the
accused were in charge of writing some of the articles included in this newspaper in order to
disseminate the ideology and other plans of [Shining Path].” 166 On February 1, 1993, the Higher
Court of Lima declared that “there were grounds to proceed to an oral hearing against [Ms. J.] for
annexes to the answering brief, annex 38, folio 3691).
160
Preliminary statement of April 28, 1992, before the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the answering
brief, annex 39, folio 3693).
161
Preliminary statement of May 26, 1992, before the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the answering
brief, annex 40, folio 3695).
162
Cf. Preliminary statement of June 10, 1992, before the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the
answering brief, annex 41, folios 3697 to 3701); preliminary statement of June 15, 1992, before the Tenth Investigating Court of
Lima (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 42, folios 3705 to 3709); preliminary statement of June 19, 1992, before the
Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the State’s brief of June 24, 2013, annex 17, folios 4740 to 4745), and
preliminary statement of August 3, 1992, before the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the State’s brief of
June 24, 2013, annex 18, folios 4745 to 4747).
163
Report of the special prosecutor for terrorism No. 118-92.9 of September 9, 1992 (file of annexes to the answering
brief, annex 43, folio 3740).
164
Cf. Decision of the Forty-third Investigative Judge of Lima of October 28, 1992 (file of annexes to the answering brief,
annex 44, folios 3743 to 3745).
165
Regarding Ms. J., he merely indicated that “the [13] accused [who included Ms. J.] in order to evade their
responsibilities and the action of justice prepared alibis that lack any legal basis or logic.” Charges brought by the Public
Prosecution Service on January 8, 1993 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 45, folio 3756 to 3759).
166
Charges brought by the Public Prosecution Service on January 8, 1993 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex
45, folio 3756 and 3758). Furthermore, the said indictment indicates that the other accused, who included Ms. J., “deny any
participation in the perpetration of the crime investigated, narrating in great detail the way and circumstances in which they had
been raided by the police, and all affirming that they have no connection whatsoever to Shining Path and that they were
unaware that El Diario was linked to this subversive group.” In addition, the indictment indicates that some of the accused,
including Ms. J., “in order to evade their responsibilities and the action of justice prepared alibis that lack any legal basis or
logic.” Charges brought by the Public Prosecution Service on January 8, 1993 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 45,
folios 3756 and 3757).
32