24 witnesses whose statements appeared in the police investigation report; d) the document containing the statement made by the detainee at the preliminary hearing does not bear the signatures of the participating officers of the court; and e) defense counsel was intimidated when representing the alleged victim. 86.17 On November 28 and 29, 1993, Mr. Astorga Valdez was sent notification of the order instituting the first phase of the trial, and the order of detention; at the same time, the Director of Lima’s Bureau of Prisons was asked to move the individual in custody to a maximum security prison.35 86.18 On December 1, 1993, Mr. Astorga Valdez’ attorney filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.36 86.19 On January 2, 1994, the prosecutorial indictment was presented. It stated that while the evidence “proves [Mr. Astorga Valdez’] criminal conduct, said conduct does not rise to the level of treason.” It therefore recommended that were the accused found guilty of the crime of terrorism, his case be referred to the regular courts.37 86.20 On January 6, 1993, the defense attorney was permitted to view the case file for a period of one hour for the purpose of preparing her arguments. She was also notified that the verdict would be read at 9:00 a.m. the following day. Defense counsel presented her written arguments on January 6, the same day she was given her first access to the case file.38 86.21 On January 7, 1994, the Judge of the FAP Special Military Court of Inquiry granted “the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, entered by Alejandro Astorga Valdez”; consequently, “the Court d[id] not have jurisdiction to rule on [his] criminal behavior.”39 35. Cf. Notification of the order instituting the examining phase, p. 659, and memorandum No- IIIJIME No. 037 from the Special Military Court to the Director of the Lima Bureau of Prisons, p. 873, both from file No. 078 TP 93 ZJ FAP. 36. Cf. Brief of defense counsel Gloria Cano Legua of November 30, 1993, file No. 078 TP 93 ZJ FAP, pp. 673-674f. 37. Cf. Criminal indictment, p. 769, and the decision of the Special Military Court of Inquiry, January 4, 1994, p. 773, both from file No. 078 TP 93 ZJ FAP. 38. Cf. Official notice of January 5, 1994, f. 761, and pleading of defense counsel Gloria Cano Legua, pp. 780-785, both from file No. 078 TP 93 ZJ FAP; the Commission’s final pleadings, and testimony of defense counsel Gloria Cano Legua. 39. Cf. Judgment of the Special Military Court of Inquiry, January 7, 1994, pp. 800-812; file No. 078 TP 93 ZJ FAP.