5 a) in regards to the duty to comply with the right to freedom from ex post facto laws and the requirements of due process in the new proceeding pending against Ms. De La Cruz Flores: i. on July 11, 2006, the Sala Nacional de Terrorismo (National Chamber on Terrorism) rendered judgment in the second criminal proceeding, and sentenced Ms. De La Cruz Flores to a prison term equivalent to the period of time she was held in custody until she was released in July 2004. Neither she nor her defense counsel was able to get a copy of said decision, which nevertheless the defendant moved to vacate at the sentencing hearing; ii. on July 11, 2006, the Superior Assistant Prosecutor filed a motion to vacate the judgment with regard to, inter alia¸ the decision to deem the prison term imposed on Ms. De La Cruz Flores served; iii. even though the Corte Suprema (Supreme Court of Peru) has not ruled on the motions filed against the judgment of conviction rendered in the second proceeding pending against Ms. De La Cruz Flores, due process violations have already taken place throughout the proceeding that resulted in her conviction for medical acts and her suspension from the practice of medicine for one year; iv. the State violated the right to freedom from ex post facto laws and due process of law in the new criminal proceeding pending against Ms. De La Cruz Flores when it prosecuted the victim for acts that the Inter-American Court found in its Judgment to be “essentially lawful” — medical acts—, and when it continued to maintain as valid procedural steps that the Inter-American Court found to be invalid. Moreover, the State prosecuted her twice for the same acts by applying different statutory provisions, i.e. Section 5 of Law No. 25475, and the 1921 and 1991 Criminal Codes, as amended; v. court procedures in the second criminal proceeding exceeded a reasonable time for the commencement of the trial. Furthermore, due to delays and suspensions of the trial hearings Ms. De La Cruz Flores’s job was adversely affected; vi. the State failed to comply with its duty to observe the right to freedom from ex post facto laws insofar as during the second proceeding no new evidence was introduced to prove Dr. De la Cruz Flores’s membership in the terrorist organization Sendero Luminoso and other evidence gathered during the preliminary investigation, which was favorable to her, was not taken into account by the Sala Nacional de Terrorismo (National Chamber on Terrorism) in the judgment of conviction. None of the witness statements include a detailed or express accusation of having engaged in conduct outside the scope of standard medical practice; vii. such National Court based its finding of liability on the content of the statements made by witness Code No. A2230000001 and Jacqueline Aroni-Apcho and Elisa Mabel Mantilla-Moreno, offered in the first proceeding. By automatically introducing said evidence into the second