20 prosecutors and clerks of the Superior Tribunals of the civil court system. Regarding the right of defense, he explained that persons investigated or prosecuted on a charge of terrorism or treason were labeled, and that this also extended to their attorneys. He reported that in 1993, several lawyers had been prosecuted and that in the early months of that year Decree-Law Nº 25.475 (crime of terrorism) was enacted and prohibited a lawyer from defending more than one person on trial on a charge of terrorism. He further testified that access to the case files had to be applied for in writing and was subject to a notified decision; in the case of his client, Mr. Pedro Telmo Vega, the case file consisted of nine volumes, and he was granted only seven hours in which to examine it, so that he could hardly apprise himself of all the judicial proceedings. The witness testified that Decree-Law Nº 25.475 (crime of terrorism) stipulates that a person convicted of that crime must spend one year in continuous solitary confinement, which involved receiving no visits from his relatives and not being allowed to confer with his attorneys. He said that Ms. Loayza-Tamayo had the right to be visited by her attorney once a week for a limited time; Ms. Loayza-Tamayo received a visit from her defense attorney once a week on Tuesdays; contact was made using a booth, and lasted fifteen minutes; any communication the attorney wished to deliver had first to be censored by the person in charge; detainees had no access to newspapers or magazines; visits -only allowed to close relatives- were permitted once a month and lasted thirty minutes. Ms. LoayzaTamayo has two sons and the regime of visits for minors was thirty minutes every three months, which meant that she could only see them for a total of two hours each year. The witness testified that these visits were all made without any physical contact. He did not enjoy full guarantees to act, and that although he had not himself been directly harassed or intimidated, his colleagues had been, some having even been prosecuted on charges of terrorism. He hoped that nothing would happen to him on his return to the country. He knew that persons detained in connection with the Loayza Tamayo case had been tortured; they apparently received no medical care since the forensic doctor performed only a very superficial examination; he knew of no case in which members of the security forces accused of torturing detainees had been punished or investigated. He said that in Peru there was no autonomous codification of the crime of torture, and that complaints could only be filed for injuries and abuse of authority. He referred to the enactment in 1995 of the Amnesty Law which allowed them to go unpunished, inasmuch as it ordered the discontinuance of all judicial proceedings and administrative or legal investigations of events connected with the fight against subversion. On the topic of Ms. LoayzaTamayo's incarceration, the witness testified that she was transferred from Block A to Block C, where she was subjected to a regime in which those indicted on charges of terrorism were obliged to remain in their cells for twenty-three and a half hours and were only allowed into the courtyard for half an hour, unlike the regime in Block A, where there was greater flexibility and some tasks could be performed. He said that statistics disseminated by the Special Tribunal of the Supreme Council of Military Justice on trials for the crime of terrorism showed that acquittals since 1992 accounted for three percent; he knew of cases in which innocent persons had been convicted; Ms. Loayza-Tamayo was acquitted by the military court but was not released, and was later convicted in the civil courts for the same facts of which the military court had acquitted her. He said that in the military proceeding an appeal could be filed against a conviction by the military examining magistrate with the Military Court Martial, and later with the Special Tribunal of the Supreme Court of Military Justice, which was the court of last instance. The judicial investigation in the civil court system did not culminate in any jurisdictional decision; it was followed by the oral proceeding in which a special faceless chamber rendered a judgment, which could be examined by the Supreme Court of Justice through an equally faceless