4 take revenge on him for reporting the passport business dealings with criminal rings. This was also a way for the high-ranking police officers to “shake off” the scandal made by the media, because from that point on, the media made it seem like the petitioner was the leader of the criminal ring. 15. The alleged victim claims that because the charges discredited the Office of Migration, which was under the Executive Branch of Government (Ministry of the Interior) and this was taking place when former President Fujimori’s reelection campaign for president (1994) was in full swing, and because one of his campaign theme-banners was to crack down on corruption, the press was calling for jail terms for those involved and the head of one high-ranking police chief at the time. He contends that since the Director of Migration and the Deputy Director of Migratory Control at the time were protégées of President Fujimori and Montesinos, respectively, there was no other high-ranking police officer left to blame but him. He argues that these two high-ranking police officers were not named in the criminal indictment nor were they prosecuted. 16. The petitioner alleges that, because of the foregoing reasons, the prosecuting attorney named him in the criminal indictment and sought to take him into custody, even though he had not been summoned in advance in order to defend himself against the charges brought against him, and the preliminary investigation judge ordered his arrest. The petitioner contends that he turned himself in to the court and, even though he filed three motions for conditional release, he was deprived of his liberty for 8 months until, under an order of June 22, 1995, the Fifth Chamber for Criminal Matters granted him conditional release, on the grounds that the charges against him were unsubstantiated in light of the evidence that had been introduced. 17. The petitioner claims that on November 8, 1996, the Fifth Chamber for Criminal Matters of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima, paradoxically, sentenced him to 4 years in prison for abuse of the authority to authenticate official documents, crimes against the administration of justice and corruption of public officials, and then suspended execution of the sentence. He contended that the only basis for this conviction was the accusatory statement made by a co-defendant, even though no additional corroborating evidence had been introduced in support of that statement and many other testimonial statements and evidence proving his innocence were not taken into consideration. The petitioner emphasized that the burden of proof had been reversed in the judgment and that part of the legal reasoning behind his conviction was that he had been unable to totally prove his innocence. 18. He also notes that he challenged this conviction by filing a motion to set it aside (recurso de nulidad) before the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, which upheld it on December 17, 1997, providing no explanation of the legal basis for the ruling. He asserts that, on September 14, 1998, he filed a motion to review the conviction (recurso de revisión) with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Justice, which was denied on August 24, 1999, on procedural grounds. The petitioner contends that this ruling was based on a report written by two Supreme Court Justices, in which it is clearly explained that, even though the motion was found inadmissible on procedural grounds, both the deprivation of liberty and the conviction of the petitioner were arbitrary, inasmuch as they violated the most fundamental principles of due process rights and of constitutional and legal human rights provisions. 19. The alleged victim also reports that, on December 13, 2000, he filed a criminal complaint for the crime of abuse of authority and malfeasance in office against the three members of the court who convicted him. He noted that the complaint was dismissed. He contended that one of the members of the court charged in the complaint sent him a threatening note to try to get him to pay US$100,000 for bringing the charges against him.