15 Judge Ibazeta had also had close ties to the Government of Alberto Fujimori, and the latter had even sent him to represent the State before the InterAmerican Commission in 1998. Finally, she considered that Ibazeta did not play the role of moderator, but of prosecutor, owing both to his attitude and during the presentation of evidence. She said that objections were raised to other decisions made by the court; such as the use of the case file from the military trial and all its components as evidence, and the use of the video of her presentation to the press. However, the objections were declared inadmissible by the court and in the final judgment. Mario Cavagnaro, the prosecutor who had taken part in the military trial, also took part in the civilian trial. During the oral stage, he took alleged evidence to the National Chamber for Terrorism, Criminal Organizations and Groups (hereinafter “National Terrorism Chamber”) consisting in newspaper Articles and “irregular” reports on acts of indiscipline that occurred in the prison where the alleged victim was confined. In the ordinary jurisdiction, the National Police provided him with a copy of the case file from the military jurisdiction, while her lawyer did not have a copy and could only examine it in the National Terrorism Chamber, if the file was not being used. A member of the Chamber even gave copies of the file to the press. The basis for the whole civil trial was the case file from the military trial. Mr. Cavagnaro admitted the whole of this file. Neither the alleged victim nor her lawyer requested the incorporation of the evidence used in the military trial. The legislation under which she was tried responded to the socio-political context of the fight against subversion by then President Fujimori. She considered that her case has been used as a political case. 75. The State forwarded the sworn testimonial statements (affidavits) of Javier Pérez de Cuellar, Henry Pease García, Dennis Jett, Valentín Paniagua Corazao and Walter Albán Peralta (supra paras. 38 and 48), as ordered by the President in orders of March 5 and April 29, 2004 (supra paras. 35 and 45). The Court will now summarize the relevant parts of these statements. a. Testimony of Javier Pérez de Cuellar, Ambassador of the Republic of Peru to France He was Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Peru from November 2000 to July 2001, during the mandate of President Valentín Paniagua Corazao. The Cabinet of which he was member was committed to reestablishing the State’s institutional structure, which had suffered the consequences of an authoritarian regime that violated human rights. In the period preceding his mandate, Peru withdrew from the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court by Legislative Resolution No. 27,152. When the transition Government took office, Congress adopted Legislative Resolution No. 27,401, which annulled the former resolution. Thus, the Government gave formal notice to the Inter-American Court, the interAmerican system, and the international community that the State would comply with its international human rights commitments, that the decisions of the Inter-American Court would be complied with, and that the Government