13 member of the terrorist organization "Shining Path", a claim corroborated by Angélica Torres-García, who was arrested on a warrant for the crime of Treason and claimed to be familiar with the Loayza-Tamayo domicile. e. Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo was detained and held incommunicado under Article 2(20)(i) of the 1979 Political Constitution of Peru and that, pursuant to Article 2 of Decree-Law Nº 25.744 of September 27, 1992, the National Police had the authority to carry out preventive arrests of persons purportedly implicated, for a period of fifteen days extendible for a further fifteen days under the Decree. To the allegation that Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo was kept in detention after the Special Tribunal of the Supreme Council of Military Justice had acquitted her through its judgment of August 11, 1993, the State responded that a petition for special review had been filed against that judgment; the trial was therefore still in progress and no final judgment has been rendered. It was only on September 24, 1993, that the Full Chamber of the Special Military Supreme Tribunal maintained that judgment, making it final; more than fifteen calendar days had not elapsed "between the date of the review petition and the date on which the process before the civil jurisdiction was initiated (by means of the auto apertorio de instrucción); in other words, the provision of the Political Constitution was not breached." The State therefore denied that Ms. Loayza-Tamayo's arrest and subsequent trial constituted a violation of her liberty and her right to humane treatment. f. During her interrogation by DINCOTE on February 15, 1993, Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo "did not in any of her replies claim that she had been tortured [or] raped," and in the medical examination she underwent "showing that she was treated" for injuries resulting from sexual abuse, for which reason the State refuted the allegations contained in the application The State also denied that Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo had been struck on the head and arms, had her arms tied behind her back and that she was forced to remain standing or sitting for long periods, without support for her back, was not allowed to use the hygiene facilities, relieve herself, or receive food and water, all for the purpose of forcing her to incriminate herself and confess that she was a member of the Peruvian Communist Party Faction Shining Path ... all of them unlawful acts. g. The prosecution of persons accused of the crimes of terrorism and treason is governed by Decree-Laws Nº 25.475 (crime of terrorism) and Nº 25.659 (crime of treason) respectively. Trials for the former crime are the province of the civil courts, and for the latter that of Military Justice. Treason is not aggravated terrorism, but draws "specific criminal actions [from the former] and incorporates them into the new crime, which cannot be interpreted as constituting the same unlawful criminal act." Also, when the Special Supreme Military Tribunal delivered its judgment of August 11, 1993, it was simply ruling that the acts imputed to María Elena Loayza-Tamayo did not constitute the crime of Treason, but the crime of terrorism ... and [the] term acquittal used by the Military Justice ... is the procedural formula employed by the Military Justice when it deems that acts imputed to a particular person are not provided for in D.L. 25.659 and its extensions, but in Decree-Law 25.475. h. It claimed that the trial was conducted lawfully and that both the military and the civil courts were independent and impartial, as were the "faceless judges who tried María Elena Loayza-Tamayo" in those courts. In its closing arguments the State also contended that Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo was not tried twice for the