8 wrong one, after which she was brought a log in which entries and arrests were recorded, but that it had been closed and reopened at the last page, and the dates did not match; in other words, in her view, it had been hurriedly filled in. She further testified that the log she requested had never been in her possession; she had visited the scene to familiarize herself with the site, and interviewed several witnesses to the arrest but that, from fear, only two had identified themselves; in order to protect them, she did not divulge their names in the record she drew up in connection with her ruling of admissibility of habeas corpus. That the record had been written out by hand, but since the case file was lost, the records was not available in the docket of the Inter-American Court. The versions of the arrest given by those two witnesses and several others were consistent; the witnesses identified Mr. Castillo-Páez from a photograph she showed them, and identified the men who arrested him as police officers; some of the witnesses said that the policemen were tall and heavily built, and even that one of them wore a moustache. The witnesses told her that the gentleman was walking, not running, when he was held at gunpoint, stripped of his eyeglasses, handcuffed and put in the trunk of one of the patrol cars. She further stated that she admitted the petition of habeas corpus, and mentioned a cousin of Mr. Castillo-Páez, also disappeared, whose remains had been found at a nearby beach. She was aware of the police reports which admitted that police raids had been made at the same hour at a place nearby, and that four persons had been detained and placed at the disposal of the DIRCOTE. The Magistrate testified that the witnesses told her that the vehicles present at the time of the arrest had been patrol vehicles, and that one of them was white, adding that "I even believe that I was given the number of the patrol car. As I said, it would have been entered in the record I drew up." The Magistrate said that the witnesses told her that there were two vehicles, but that only one was involved in the arrest. She further testified that she had visited the scene not to take statements, but only to prepare the report. She confirmed that she had identified the witnesses but that, for the sake of their safety, had not done so in the report. She claimed that this did not constitute an anomaly. e. Testimony of Mr. Augusto Zúñiga-Paz, attorney for the victim in the domestic proceeding The witness testified that he learned from his investigations and through an official communication from the Minister of the Interior to the Chamber of Deputies that agents from the 74th Brigade, patrol vehicles 741005 and 291034 and officers of the 29th Brigade together with DIROVE, EVEX and SWAT (or "SUAT", according to the videotape produced as evidence by the Commission, Attachment XII to the Petition), were involved in the military operation in which Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez was arrested. He had talked at length to a senior military officer on January 29, 1991, after which he learned that Commandant Juan Carlos Mejía-León was the officer responsible for Mr. Castillo-Páez's death; that officer suggested that he drop his investigation because his life was in danger and informed him that Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez was dead and that his remains had been taken to a beach south of Lima and exploded. As for the attempt on his own life, he testified that while he was representing Mr. Castillo-Páez before the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, he complained of serious threats to his life. The President of the Chamber, Mr. Horacio Valladares-Ayarza interrupted the session to inform him that the Supreme Court had dispatched an official communication to the Minister of the Interior requesting protection and guarantees for him, but that was never done. On June 15, 1991, an attempt was made on his life; on that day he concluded an expert opinion he was delivering in a case against the former President of the Republic, Dr.