sentence of 20 years for having violated the criminal code and decree law No. 25.475 which came into force on May 6, 1992. 32. The petition states that Mrs. Mónica Feria was tried before the Superior Court in six sessions that took place between March and June 1993. Finally, the petitioner states that on June 18, 1993, the Superior Court acquitted her and she was released. However, following this she claims that the Peruvian government appealed this finding before a faceless Supreme Court which, on December 27, 1993, annulled the acquittal and ordered a new oral hearing to take place. The petitioner states that the court based its finding on the argument that “…the sentence before us does not effect a proper examination of the facts on which the acquittal was based, nor is the evidence on which the acquittal is based sufficiently compelling to establish the innocence or guilt of the accused…” Considering this, the petitioner alleges that it amounts to “an infringement of the guarantee that a person shall not be subjected to a new trial for the same cause, enshrined in Article 8(4) of the Convention.” Furthermore, the petitioner states that annulling the acquittal and ordering a new oral hearing against her was a pretext to influence the outcome of proceedings and “change the verdict to a guilty one.” The petitioner states that since April 1992 the Peruvian State has had criminal proceedings open against her with a warrant for her arrest, which was the basis of the request for her extradition. 33. The petitioner argues that the faceless Supreme Court’s declaration of annulment is unlawful and does not affect the res judicata of the acquittal judgment, on the grounds that the acquittal was not based on the exhaustive assumptions envisaged in law; that there was an implicit call for the acceptance of unlawfully acquired evidence; and that the ruling was made outside the legal period and by a faceless Supreme Court, which was declared unlawful by the Constitutional Court. 34. For her part, the petitioner states that during the period of her imprisonment, between April 1992 and June 1993, she was granted only three 15-25 minute opportunities to speak to her lawyer, each of these occasions under the strict supervision of the authorities. She alleges that in spite of being accused of committing an act which allegedly took place before April 6, 1992 (specifically between the month of March and April 6, 1992), the charges against her are based on the provisions of the Criminal Code, modified by Decree Law No 23475, dated August 5, 1992, which she alleges amounts to an imposition of ex post facto laws. 35. Once she was released, the petitioner states that she was harassed by policemen on two occasions and was the victim of a series of death and torture threats. She alleges that as a result of these incidents she was forced to leave Peru in August 1993, and since then has lived in the United Kingdom where she was granted political asylum and has been receiving treatment for tuberculosis 2 for over a year, which she claims she contracted during her detainment. Furthermore, the information indicates that up to the date on which the petition was lodged, the petitioner continued to suffer posttraumatic nervous disorders as a result of the mistreatment she suffered at the hands of the Peruvian authorities. 36. The petitioner has filed additional allegations and provided a series of press cuttings as evidence that while the criminal proceedings against her were still underway she was described to the Peruvian and international press by high-ranking state authorities as “a terrorist,” thus infringing her right to the presumption of innocence. 37. To conclude, the petitioner requests that this petition be declared admissible and the responsibility of the Peruvian State established for the violation of the rights protected in Articles 4 (Life), 5 (Humane Treatment), 7 (Personal Liberty), 8 (Fair Trial), 9 (Freedom from Ex Post Facto Laws), 11 (Privacy), 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression), 14 (Reply), and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights. With regard to the requirements for the admissibility of the petition, the petitioner states that she is exempt from 2 The petitioner states in her document dated June 17, 1997 that the conditions in which she was detained brought on a deterioration in her health until in November 1992 she was diagnosed with tuberculosis. 5