2 pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR in force at the time. The State sent its reply on September 3, 1993, and submitted additional filings on June 14, 1996, and on August 18, 1998. 5. In January 1999, Mrs. Teodora Gonzales sent a communication describing the detention conditions in which Gladys Carol Espinoza was being held. That communication was recorded as a new petition, registered as No. 12.079, and conveyed to the State on January 27, 1999, with a 90-day deadline for it to file its response. On June 1, 1999, the IACHR notified the parties of its decision to combine petitions 11.157 and 12.097 and to identify them jointly by the former number. The State submitted further information on June 28, 1999, and on January 3, February 29, and June 15, 2000. Similarly, the petitioners filed additional information on August 31, 1999, April 13, 2000, and May 20, 2004. 6. On November 13, 2004, the IACHR informed the parties of its decision to apply Article 3 37.3 of its Rules of Procedure in force at the time, and asked them for their comments on the merits of the case. The petitioners submitted further communications on December 30, 2004, and June 14, 2006. The State sent filings on January 25, February 18, March 16, April 28, and May 12, 2005, and on November 29 and December 6, 2006. 7. On October 23, 2008, during its 133rd regular session, the IACHR held a private hearing on the merits of the case. On that occasion, the expert witness put forward by the petitioners, Dr. Carmen Wurst de Landázuri, presented her psychological and psychiatric evaluation of Gladys Carol Espinoza. Dr. Carmen Wurst took an oath and presented the IACHR with her personal details and her accreditation as a registered professional with the College of Psychologists of Peru. 8. The petitioners submitted additional information on November 20, 2008, and on January 15 and September 14, 2010. Similarly, the State lodged filings on December 9, 2009, and on October 15, 2010. In a note received on October 28, 2010, the petitioners reported that they had no further comments. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Petitioners 9. The petitioners report that Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzales was detained, for the first time, on March 28, 1987, and was taken, with violence, to the Antiterrorism Directorate (DIRCOTE) in the city of Lima. They claim she was held at that police facility for 15 days, during which time she was forcibly stripped, stretched, and attacked in other ways. According to their claims, the alleged victim was accused of involvement in attacks on commercial establishments as a member of the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA). They report that on April 28, 1987, she was transferred to the Miguel Castro Castro Maximum Security Penitentiary and, on April 13, 1988, she was released after her acquittal from the prosecution brought against her for the crime of terrorism. The petitioners state that “Gladys Carol never 4 lodged any formal complaints for the treatment she received during her first arrest in 1987.” 10. They report that on April 17, 1993, Gladys Carol Espinoza was intercepted on the street in the province of Lima, while in the company of her companion Rafael Salgado Castilla. They claim that 5 dozens of members of the Abduction Investigation Division (DIVISE), in civilian clothing, forced the 3 That article, the text of which was maintained as Article 36.3 of the current Rules of Procedure, read as follows: “in exceptional circumstances, and after having requested information from the parties in keeping with the provisions of Article 30 of these Rules of Procedure, the Commission may open a case but defer its treatment of admissibility until the debate and decision on the merits.” 4 In a communication received on September 14, 2010, the petitioners stated that Gladys Carol Espinoza’s March 1987 arrest and the alleged acts of torture she suffered during her 15 days’ detention at DIRCOTE “are not being litigated in this case, but their inclusion is important, for the Commission to be aware of the background to the victim’s situation prior to her second arrest in 1993.” 5 According to the information presented, in the early 1990s the National Police’s Abduction Investigation Division (DIVISE) was renamed the Division for Investigating Crimes against Individual Freedom (DIDCOL). The copies of the judicial case Continues…