of the Government of Emergency and National Reconstruction (supra para. 63), Decree-Law No. 25,475 was issued on May 5, 1992, amending the provisions of the 1991 Criminal Code concerning 77 the said offenses. 71. Decree-Law No. 25,475 also amended various procedural matters relating to the investigation and prosecution of crimes of terrorism. The Court has indicated that, owing to this decree, the trials undertaken for crimes of terrorism were characterized, among other matters, by: the possibility of ordering the complete incommunicado of those detained for a legal maximum period, the limitation of the participation of defense counsel after the detainee had given his or her statement, the inadmissibility of release on bail during the investigation stage, the prohibition of offering as witnesses those who intervened, owing to their functions, in the elaboration of the police attestation, the obligation of the senior prosecutor to press charges “under his own responsibility,” 78 the holding of the trial by private hearings, the inadmissibility of recusing any of the intervening judges and judicial auxiliaries, the participation of ‘secret’ judges and prosecutors, and continual solitary confinement for the first year of the prison sentences imposed. 79 It also established that “[t]he processing of the cases that, at the date [the decree came] into force, [were] at the stage of the police investigation, preliminary investigation by the court, or trial, [would] be adapted to the provisions of [the said] Decree-Law.” 80 72. Then, on August 12, 1992, Decree-Law No. 25,659 was promulgated which established the inadmissibility of “habeas corpus for detainees accused of, or being processed for, crimes of terrorism.” 81 73. The CVR indicated that the rights of those accused were infringed by the application of the counter-terrorism laws, owing to “indiscriminate detentions, trials for crimes that had not been committed, the manufacturing of evidence, delays in the proceedings, the defenselessness of those detained, and the delivery of judgments without real grounds.” In particular, it established that: [O]wing to the fact that the guarantees ensuring a proper assessment of the evidence were eliminated, the manufacture of evidence became an extended practice of the National Police and the Armed Forces in order to incriminate those they considered presumed terrorists, but whose guilt they could not prove by other means. Thus, the well-known “plants” were carried out; in other words, false evidence was planted in the homes or among the belongings of the suspects, to serve as evidence in the criminal proceedings or, in the worst case, to encourage detainees to incriminate other individuals. 82 D) Amendments to the counter-terrorism laws promote, organize, disseminate or commit direct or indirect acts of terrorism, as set forth in this chapter, shall be punished, for the mere act of being a member, with no less than ten or more than twenty years’ imprisonment.” 1991 Peruvian Criminal Code, article 322 (file of annexes to the State’s brief of August 14, 2013, folio 5446). 77 3255). Cf. Articles 2, 5 and 7 of Decree-Law No. 25,475 of May 5, 1992 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 7, folio 78 According to Decree 25,475, “[w]hen the preliminary investigation has concluded, the case file shall be forwarded to the president of the respective court, who shall forward the proceedings to the senior public prosecutor, who, in turn, will appoint a public prosecutor who must bring charges within three days, subject to incurring responsibility.” Decree-Law No. 25,475 of May 5, 1992, article 13(d) (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 7, folio 3262). 79 Cf. Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru, supra, para. 73.4, and Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 97(3). See also, Decree-Law No. 25,475 of May 5, 1992, arts. 12(d), 12(f), 13(a), 13(c), 13(d), 13(f), 13(h), 15 and 20 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 7, folios 3261, 3262 and 3264). 80 Decree-Law No. 25,475 of May 5, 1992, transitory and final provisions, fifth (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 7, folio 3265). 81 Decree-Law No. 25,659 promulgated on August 12, 1992, article 6 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 9, folio 3273). 82 Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, volume III, chapter 2.6, pp. 280 and 281. 23