6 7 judgment of January 3, 2003.” It notes that under this judgment, several provisions of the terrorism decree laws enacted during the government of Alberto Fujimori were ruled unconstitutional. 31. The State emphasizes that this judgment by the Constitutional Court repealed the provisions of the antiterrorist legislation that prevented magistrates from being challenged, officers named in the police arrest report from being summoned to appear as witnesses, and trials of civilians from being conducted before the civilian courts. It further notes that detention in absolute incommunicado conditions and solitary confinement during the first year of a prison term were ruled unconstitutional. 32. The State stresses that the alleged violations of the Convention arising from the antiterrorist legislation in force during the 1990s were rectified with the adoption of new legislative decrees on terrorism offenses in early 2003, as a result of which the matter of the instant petition is now moot. 33. Regarding the alleged attacks and other acts of violence against the alleged victim, the State notes that the reports prepared in early 1993 by the National Police and the Legal Medicine Institute concluded that although the alleged victim showed hematomas, bruises, and indications of a “recent unnatural act,” they could not be identified as the result of torture. It maintains that “Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzales’s claim that she was the victim of torture and inhumane treatment was an argument whereby she sought to escape criminal responsibility, and it was disproved as evidence with the corresponding medical certificates contained in the case file of the criminal trial.” 34. The State reports that an expert psychological assessment performed in April 1993 concluded that “the subject appears to be a person given to manipulation in order to secure an advantage.” It notes that the professionals who conducted that assessment ratified their opinion at Gladys Carol Espinoza’s trial before the regular courts in 2003. The State adds that as a part of those proceedings, the National Terrorism Chamber ordered fresh medical examinations, which revealed no signs of torture. It notes that in the deed of execution of November 24, 2004, the Temporary Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice said that: during the oral proceedings, the medical experts have stated that Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles’s injuries are not compatible with torture, and the expert psychological examination concluded that the subject was a person given to manipulation in order to secure advantage. 35. The State contends that the elements that, in the petitioners’ view, are grounds for an investigation into the alleged crime of torture were extensively debated and studied in the criminal proceedings that concluded with the supreme deed of execution of November 24, 2004. It adds that “had there been any indications of possible violations of Article 5 of the Pact of San José, the corresponding investigations would have been initiated and the guilty would have been punished.” 36. Regarding the alleged mistreatment and lack of adequate medical treatment while Ms. Gladys Carol Espinoza was held at Yanamayo Prison, Peru presents a medical certificate dated December 17, 1999, which reports her as “in an apparently good general state of health.” 37. The State indicates that the alleged rape of Gladys Carol Espinoza on police premises reportedly took place between April and May 1993, while Peru deposited its instrument of ratification of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women on June 4, 1996. Peru therefore contends that the IACHR lacks competence ratione temporis to issue rulings under that instrument. Finally, it holds that the petitioners’ contentions do not tend to establish a violation of rights protected by the Convention and asks the IACHR to rule the complaint inadmissible under Article 47.b thereof. 7 Resolution of the Constitutional Court of January 3, 2003, Case No. 010-2002-AI/TC, unconstitutionality suit brought by Marcelino Tineo Silva and other citizens.