24 Prosecutor’s Office so that new charges be brought. The new proceedings would start once the annulment had been declared. Trials in Peru are now public; it is possible to examine the witnesses, whether they are individuals who have witnessed terrorist events or police officers who have taken part in the preparation of police reports. It is also possible to examine pleabargaining defendants, as well as to know their identities. On assessing the performance of the National Chamber for Terrorism (Sala Nacional de Terrorismo), and in terms of the number of acquitted individuals, who had been previously convicted of terrorism or high treason, it is evident that the procedure for weighing the evidence adopted by that Chamber is a new one, different from the one adopted in the judgments rendered by “faceless” judges or military courts. In accordance with Legislative Decree No. 926, the proceedings currently being conducted are based on police reports. Formerly, it was not possible to challenge the contents of a police report or the alleged evidence gathered or produced by the police during the preliminary investigation. In the new proceedings, it is possible to challenge said evidence during the preliminary investigation stage and at the oral proceedings. The issue concerning the legal basis for the confinement of the accused after the annulments pursuant to Legislative Decree No. 926 is rather questionable. The Constitutional Court passed a decision holding that arrest warrants should be issued pursuant to the criminal procedural legislation rather than the anti-terrorist legislation, specifically in accordance with Article 135 of the Criminal Procedural Code, setting out the extent and the circumstances in which a judge may issue a warrant of arrest, in conjunction with the provisions of Legislative Law No. 926, which determine that the annulment of proceedings, judgments, penalties, trials, and accusations shall not bring about the release of the accused. Pursuant to the Criminal Procedural Code, the maximum term of detention is 36 months next following the commencement of new proceedings. Therefore, as a matter of fact the term of detention suffered by detainees under the previous proceedings is not considered. B) TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE 87. At the public hearing held on May 10, 2005, the Court heard the testimonies of the witnesses offered by the Commission (supra para. 33). The Court shall now summarize the relevant parts of said testimonies: 1. Wilson García-Asto, alleged victim He was detained on June 30, 1995, at a bus stop. As he was traveling to one of his relatives’ house, an armed man came up to two individuals standing near the alleged victim. The witness was handcuffed, his pockets were searched and his belongings, his study notebook, his watch, and his personal documents were taken