39 97(43) On April 27, 2004 the DINCOTE informed the National Chamber for Terrorism (Sala Nacional de Terrorismo) that despite the measures adopted, it had not been possible to “find the documents and the information seized” from the alleged victim. Regarding Wilson García-Asto’s computer, it was reported that it was kept in custody at the Seized Property Management Unit (Unidad de Administración de Bienes Incautados) and that a request had been made so that said equipment be directly forwarded to the pertinent judicial authorities.41 97(44) On May 10, 2004 the DINCOTE informed the National Chamber for Terrorism (Sala Nacional de Terrorismo) that from the technical inspection carried out on the computer it resulted that “the power source of the CPU, w[as] not in operating conditions, apparently due to […] the fact that it was very old and it had not been used for a long time (humidity).”42 97(45) On May 13, 2004 the National Chamber for Terrorism (Sala Nacional de Terrorismo) requested the DINCOTE to forward the analysis of the documents seized from the alleged victim’s domicile, as well as that of the “encrypted” documents stored in Wilson García-Asto’s computer memory.43 97(46) On May 20, 2004 the DINCOTE informed the National Chamber for Terrorism (Sala Nacional de Terrorismo) that it did not have the analyses “aimed at deciphering the encrypted files which were stored in the hard disk memory of the computer seized” from the alleged victim’s domicile.44 97(47) On August 5, 2004 the National Chamber for Terrorism (Sala Nacional de Terrorismo) rendered judgment acquitting Wilson García-Asto and, therefore, ordering that he be released. As to the analysis of the documents retrieved from the computer seized from the alleged victim, the National Chamber pointed out that though the police had been repeteadly required to forward said analysis, it [was] not possible to obtain it, nor was it possible to obtain the results of the deciphering, and after an expert examination had been made at the stage of the oral proceedings, the expert witnesses concluded that the type of information stored in the hard disk could not pos[sibly] be determined and that considering the risk that it m[ight] be later 3839); and order issued by the National Chamber for Terrorism (Sala Nacional de Terrorismo) on April 20, 2004 (case file of evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case submitted by the State, volume 3, page 3865). 41 Cf. Report No. 79 issued by the Peruvian National Police on April 27, 2004 (case file of evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case submitted by the State, volume 3, page 3897). 42 Cf. Technical report No. 024 issued by the Peruvian National Police on May 10, 2004 (case file of evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case submitted by the State, volume 3, page 3931). 43 Cf. Order issued by the National Chamber for Terrorism (Sala Nacional de Terrorismo) on May 13, 2004 (case file of evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case submitted by the State, volume 3, page 4055). 44 Cf. Report No. 112 issued by the Peruvian National Police on May 20, 2004 (case file of evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case submitted by the State, volume 3, page 4067).