21 106. The IACHR notes that the State has not presented copies of any arrest warrant in force as of April 17, 1993, and that none of the criminal judgments handed down against Gladys Carol Espinoza, by either the military or civilian courts, refer to any such warrant. At the same time, the Peruvian State has acknowledged that Gladys Carol Espinoza was detained while “emergency legislation against terrorism, which allowed for the warrantless arrest of those suspected of treason against the 91 fatherland,” was in force. 107. The conviction handed down by the National Terrorism Chamber on March 1, 2004, refers to a personal search report but does not indicate the police section that carried it out. A reading of the judgment indicates that the document in question does not contain the signature of the detainees 92 Gladys Carol Espinoza and Rafael Salgado Castilla. The IACHR notes that the Peruvian State did not provide it with a copy of the personal search report referred to in the judgment of March 1, 2004. 108. In light of the above considerations, the IACHR has no evidence to indicate that Gladys Carol Espinoza was arrested in flagrante delicto and it takes as established that the detention was carried out in the absence of an arrest warrant. 3. The incommunicado detention of Gladys Carol Espinoza and her presentation to a judicial authority eighty days after her arrest 109. After being taken into custody on April 17, 1993, Gladys Carol Espinoza remained at the premises of the DIVISE until April 19, 1993, when she was taken to the National Antiterrorism Directorate 93 (DINCOTE) in Lima. On April 22, 1993, members of the DINCOTE and a prosecutor from the 14th Provincial Criminal Prosecutor’s Office of Lima conducted a search of the home of the victim’s mother, Mrs. Teodora Gonzales Vda. de Espinoza. On April 23 of that year, a police officer appeared on his own initiative at Mrs. Teodora Gonzales’s home and informed her that her daughter was at the DINCOTE 94 police station, in a poor state of health. 110. Mrs. Teodora Gonzales went to the DINCOTE offices, where she was initially informed that her daughter had not been arrested. Later, a major from the National Police called Sarmiento confirmed that Gladys Carol Espinoza was at the DINCOTE but said that she was to remain under 95 medical observation for 15 days, during which time she would not be able to receive visits. 91 Communication from the Peruvian State, dated October 15, 2010, received by the IACHR on that same date, Report No. 295-2010-JUS/PPES, p. 2, para. 3. 92 Annex 14: Judgment of the National Terrorism Chamber of March 1, 2004, File No. 509-03, p. 8, which states that the report of personal inspection and seizure indicated that “a bag containing a voice distorter, a grenade, a beeper communication device, and a notebook (…) with various entries, with the report unsigned by the detainees” (emphasis added) was found in the possession of Rafael Salgado Castilla and Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzales or Victoria Romero Salazar; enclosed with the petitioners’ communication of September 14, 2010, and received by the IACHR on that same date. 93 Annex 5: Report No. 259-DINTO-DINCOTE, June 3, 1993, signed by National Police Colonel Oscar E. Chávez Ferreyros, para. 2.a. 94 Annex 15. Newspaper article from La Nación, edition of April 30, 1993, headlined APRODEH confirms: Detainee died in DINCOTE cell; enclosed with the initial petition of May 6, 1993, and received by the IACHR on May 10 of that year. See also: undated communication from the petitioners, received by the IACHR in January 1999, p. 3. That document is signed by Mrs. Teodora Gonzales Vda. de Espinoza and it indicates that At 8 p.m. on Friday April 23, a scared but human police officer, affected by my daughter’s suffering, came to my home and told me, hurriedly, that my daughter had been arrested on April 17, that she was in a serious state of health, that she had catheters attached to her, and that was when we learned about her arrest and the seriousness of her physical condition. When we went to the local police station on Av. Spain, they first denied my daughter had been arrested (…). 95 Annex 16 (a): Complaint filed by Mrs. Teodora Gonzales Vda. de Espinoza with the 14th Special Prosecutor’s Office for Terrorism, stamped received on April 26, 1993; (b) Complaint filed by the APRODEH organization with the Supreme Criminal Prosecutor in charge of the special prosecutions unit of the Office of the People’s Defender, stamped received on April 28 1993; (c) Complaint filed by the APRODEH organization with the Attorney General, stamped received on April 28 1993; documents enclosed with the initial petition of May 6, 1993, and received by the IACHR on May 10 of that year, and petitioners’ communication of September 14, 2010, received by the IACHR on that same date.