16 A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 86. The Commission has forwarded affidavits in response to the President’s Order of March 18, 2005 (supra para. 24). Furthermore, the evidence tendered by the Commission included the expert witnesses’ opinions and reports rendered before both a notary public and the Court in the Case of De la Cruz-Flores v. Peru, which, pursuant to the President’s Order of March 18 2005 (supra para. 24) were admitted to the instant case as documentary evidence. Said testimonies and reports are summarized below. TESTIMONIES 1. Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, alleged victim The alleged victim was confined in Castro-Castro Prison, Lima, Peru. He held a university degree in economics and was a supporter of Peruvian left-wing political parties. He worked at the Ministry of Economy and Finance as a financial adviser and planner for over twenty years. Then he worked as an adviser to the Congress of the Republic, in the Bi-Chamber Commission on Budgetary Affairs for six years. He retired in late July 1991. After his retirement, he carried out a personal research project, examining the role of the State in organizing and conducting the State’s economy and the origin and development of political parties in Peru. As part of his work, he extended his study to armed groups such as Sendero Luminoso (hereinafter “Shining Path”) and Movimiento Revolucionario Túpac Amaru (Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement, hereinafter “MRTA”). In order to carry out this research, he stored economic and population-related documents in his computer. Furthermore, he intended to set up a consulting firm in association with Isabel Moreno-Tarazona. On July 27, 1991, he was at home suffering from a bronchial condition and was entertaining Ms. Moreno-Tarazona. At about 7 p.m., several armed men wearing civilian clothes directly stormed into his bedroom and did not allow him to get out of bed. They told him that they were persecuting an individual from the forest, and that said individual had sneaked into his house. They told him that they would search the house, and forced him to get dressed and go down to the ground floor. They did not mind his telling them that he was sick and showing them the medicine he was taking. No public prosecutor was present while they searched the house nor did they show him a search warrant issued by a judge ordering that his house be searched. He allowed them to conduct the search because he did not have anything to hide. He reported to the police that he was in possession of a series of files relating to political groups, including Shining Path. The men seized several books, a number of manuscripts which he had collected for his research project, and recordings of several lectures. At 6:30 a.m. of the following day, when the search of the house was over, a prosecutor arrived at the house to sign the search record. The witness declared that after the search they came up with a recording in support of Shining Path, which he was made to listen to in the presence of the prosecutor. The witness