38 trial of María Teresa De La Cruz Flores relating to the second detention was unsubstantiated, “although this did not change her legal status.”71 73(40) On September 2, 2003, the Superior Prosecutor of the Office of the Second Special Superior Prosecutor for terrorism issued opinion No. 1672003-2FSEDT-MP/FN in file No. 113-95, in which he considered that there were grounds to go to trial.72 73(41) On November 6, 2003, the National Terrorism Chamber issued a decision confirming a decision of August 28, 2003, and declaring that the prison benefit of parole requested by María Teresa De La Cruz Flores was inadmissible, because it “had been established for convicted prisoners, so that they could leave prison before they have completed their full term of imprisonment” and Mrs. De La Cruz Flores “had not been convicted, [but] was merely being tried.”73 73(42) On January 20, 2004, María Teresa De La Cruz Flores’ lawyer filed a brief in which he filed pleas based on extinguishment and on the nature of the proceeding, and requested “the judge to determine the category of the crime precisely, and to define the applicable legal norm at the time the alleged acts were supposedly committed.”74 73(43) In a decision of March 9, 2004, the National Terrorism Chamber ordered, inter alia, that the case should be remitted to the Superior Criminal Prosecutor’s office, “so that he could rule, pursuant to his authority,” on the brief filed by Mrs. De La Cruz Flores’ defense lawyer, with the pleas based on extinguishment and on the nature of the proceeding, and requesting a change in the criminal category.75 73(44) Of May 6, 2004, the National Terrorism Chamber issued a decision, extending the pre-trial investigation for 15 days, “so that the judge could rule on the issues requested by the Superior Prosecutor concerning: a) the brief filed by the defendant, María Teresa De la Cruz Flores, […] with the plea based on the nature of the proceeding; c) the brief filed by the said defendant, […] with the plea based on extinguishment.”76 71 Cf. decision of June 20, 2003, issued by the National Terrorism Chamber in file No. 113-95 (file of appendixes to the brief with requests and arguments, appendix 3, folios 380 to 389). 72 Cf. opinion No. 167-2003-2FSEDT-MP/FN issued by the Superior Prosecutor of the Office of the Second Special Superior Prosecutor for terrorism on September 2, 2003, in file No. 113-95 (file on merits, reparations, and costs, tome II, folios 488 to 534). 73 Cf. decision issued by the National Terrorism Chamber on November 6, 2003, in file No. 113-95 (file on merits, reparations, and costs, tome II, folio 535). 74 Cf. brief filed before the Special Chamber for crimes of terrorism on January 20, 2004, in file No. 113-95 (file of appendixes to the final written arguments, appendix 1 to the final arguments presented by the alleged victim’s representatives, folios 1101 to 1112). 75 Cf. decision issued by the National Terrorism Chamber on March 9, 2004, in file No. 113-95 (file of appendixes to the final written arguments, appendix 1 to the final written arguments presented by the alleged victim’s representatives, folios 1096 to 1100). 76 Cf. decision issued by the National Terrorism Chamber on May 6, 2004, in file No. 113-95 (file of appendixes to the final written arguments, appendix 2 to the final written arguments presented by the State, folios 1241 to 1244).