parents] was intervened, because there was information that terrorists, members of […] ‘Shining Path,’ were meeting in that building, coordinating actions to attack Lima.” 101 80. At 8.55 p.m. on April 13, 1992, police agents raided the building located on Las Esmeraldas Street. 102 There are two versions of the events surrounding the intervention. According to the police attestation, when they arrived at the building, “the occupants tried to escape by a back door, and were subsequently captured.” 103 The record of the search of the premises indicates that the representative of the Public Prosecution Service, Magda Victoria Atto Mendives, was present during the operation. 104 In this regard, during the public hearing held in this case, the latter stated that she “was present from the start [of the intervention] until the search or the operation ended,” and that “in this specific case there was never any violence.” 105 81. According to the official records, Ms. J., another woman and a man were arrested during the intervention in the building on Las Esmeraldas Street. 106 These documents also indicate that “when searching the premises, terrorist propaganda, typed and handwritten documents [of the] Communist Party – Shining Path – were seized,” among other items. 107 According to the search record, Ms. J. and the two other individuals detained refused to sign it. 108 82. To the contrary, the presumed victim stated before the domestic authorities that “no printing press had ever operated” in the building on Las Esmeraldas Street; but rather it was used as commercial premises, and that it had been remodeled to offer it for rent, so that at the time of the events, it was empty. 109 According to Ms. J., on the evening of April 13, she was in the building 101 Attestation No. 084–DINCOTE of April 25, 1992 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 23, folios 3344 and 3349), and charges brought by the Public Prosecution Service on January 8, 1993 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 45, folio 3755). 102 Cf. Record of search of premises and seizure of property from the building on Las Esmeraldas Street (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 28, folio 323). 103 Attestation No. 084–DINCOTE of April 25, 1992 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 23, folio 3349). 104 Cf. Record of search of premises and seizure of property from the building on Las Esmeraldas Street (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 28, folios 323 and 330). 105 Statement made by Magda Victoria Atto Mendives during the public hearing held in this case. 106 Cf. Attestation No. 084–DINCOTE of April 25, 1992 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 23, folio 3349); charges brought by the Public Prosecution Service on January 8, 1993 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 45, folio 3755), and Record of search of premises and seizure of property from the building on Las Esmeraldas Street (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 28, folio 323). 107 Cf. Charges brought by the Public Prosecution Service on January 8, 1993 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 45, folio 3755), and attestation No. 084–DINCOTE of April 25, 1992 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 23, folio 3349). A complete list of the documents seized can be found in Attestation No. 084–DINCOTE of April 25, 1992 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 23, folios 3440 to 3444), and Record of search of premises and seizure of property from the building on Las Esmeraldas Street (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 28, folios 324 to 330). 108 Cf. Record of search of premises and seizure of property from the building on Las Esmeraldas Street (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 28, folio 330). According to the presumed victim, she “was never shown this record at the time of her arrest.” Cf. Preliminary statement of June 10, 1992, before the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 39, folio 3699). She also stated that “it is untrue that [she] had tried to escape from the police.” Preliminary statement of June 15, 1992, before the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 42, folio 3704). 109 Cf. Preliminary statement of June 10, 1992, before the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 41, folios 3699), and preliminary statement of June 15, 1992, before the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 42, folios 3703 and 3704). Moreover, on two other occasions, J. had stated that, in the building on Las Esmeraldas Street, there were “some items for personal use […] chairs, desks” and that Ms. J. was using the building to write her thesis. In this regard, the criminal complaint establishes that it had been disproved that the subversive material “constituted research material for her […] thesis, because no proof of this was found; for example, the thesis outline. Cf. Statement of Ms. J. of April 21, 1992 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 31, folio 3669); preliminary statement of June 19, 1992, before the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the State’s brief of June 24, 2013, annex 17, folio 4741), and April 28, 1992 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 36, folio 3683). 26