36 (Corte Suprema de Justicia de Lima), on the grounds that judicial guarantees had been violated.24 97(30) On November 27, 2002 the Forty-Third Special Criminal Court of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima (Cuadragésimo Juzgado Especializado en lo Penal de la Corte Superior de Justicia) ruled in the first instance, that the writ of habeas corpus submitted by Wilson García-Asto for the violation of due process was groundless.25 97(31) On January 15, 2003 the Third Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima (Tercera Sala Penal de la Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima) repealed the judgment of November 27, 2002, wherein the writ of habeas corpus submitted on behalf of Wilson García-Asto had been found to be groundless.26 Said judgment, after recognizing that the proceedings to which the alleged victim had been subjected were in violation of such fundamental rights as due process, the right to be tried by a competent judge, and the right to know whether the judge hearing the case was competent, and further recognizing that he had been convicted by “faceless” judges, found the first criminal proceedings brought against him in the ordinary jurisdiction for the crime of terrorism against the State to be invalid as from the order issued for pretrial investigation proceedings to be commenced. Therefore, it ordered that the case file be forwarded to the competent authorities within forty-eight hours, so that the pertinent legal steps be taken.27 97(32) On March 10, 2003, the First Special Criminal Court for Terrorism (Primer Juzgado Penal Especializado en Delito de Terrorismo) issued an order so that pre-trial investigation proceedings be commenced in the ordinary jurisdiction against Wilson García-Asto for the crime of membership in and affiliation with a terrorist organization as described in Article 5 of Decree-Law No. 25.475, on the grounds of the charges brought by the ad hoc Deputy Prosecutor in charge of the Forty-Third Provincial Criminal Public Prosecutor’s Office for Terrorism of Lima (Cuadragésima Tercera Fiscalía Provincial Penal de Lima) on July 17, 1995 (supra para. 97(19)). The judge dismissed the order for pre-trial investigation proceedings to be commenced against the alleged victim for the crime of collaboration with terrorism as described in Article 4 of the same Decree-Law, on the grounds that “[l]ikening a person’s conduct to the criminal offenses defined by the provisions of both Articles 4 and 5 was not consistent, as due to their incompatible nature they cannot coexist copulatively.”28 24 Cf. Order issued by the Forty-third Special Criminal Court of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima (Cuadragésimo Juzgado Especializado en lo Penal de la Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima) on November 27, 2002 (case file of appendixes to the application, volume 1, appendix 25, pages 194 to 196). 25 Cf. Order issued by the Forty-third Special Criminal Court of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima (Cuadragésimo Juzgado Especializado en lo Penal de la Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima) on November 27, 2002 (case file of appendixes to the application, volume 1, appendix 25, pages 194 to 196). 26 Cf. Judgment rendered by the Third Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima (Tercera Sala Penal de la Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima) on January 15, 2003 (case file of appendixes to the application, volume 1, appendix 26, page 200). 27 Cf. Judgment rendered by the Third Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima (Tercera Sala Penal de la Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima) on January 15, 2003 (case file of appendixes to the application, volume 1, appendix 26, page 200). 28 Cf. Order for pre-trial investigation proceedings to be commenced issued by the First Special Criminal Court for Terrorism (Primer Juzgado Penal Especializado en Delitos de Terrorismo) on March 10, 2003 (case file of appendixes to the application, volume 1, appendix 27, page 203).