99. That same April 28, an attempt was made to obtain the preliminary statement of Ms. J. (supra para. 98); however, the procedure was suspended “at the request of the accused who ask[ed] to be assisted by her lawyer.” 160 On May 26, 1992, an attempt was made to continue with the preliminary statement; nevertheless, once again the procedure was suspended “owing to the court’s work overload [and] the late hour.” 161 On June 10, 15 and 19 and August 3, 1992, Ms. J.’s preliminary statement was received piecemeal. 162 100. On September 9, 1992, the prosecutor indicated that “the conduct attributed to the accused was [also] established in [article] 322 of the Criminal Code, [which typifies conspiracy to commit a terrorist act].” In addition, he noted that “based on […] Decree-Law [25,475] other conducts were penalized [such as] apology of terrorism. Therefore, he indicated that “it was for the jurisdictional organ and the corresponding procedural stage” to determine “which [of the two provisions] is the most favorable to the accused.” 163 In this regard, on October 28, 1992, the criminal judge expanded the order to investigate the alleged crime of April 28, in order to consider Ms. J. as author of the “offense, also against public peace – conspiracy to commit a terrorist act,” included in Article 322 of the Criminal Code. 164 101. On January 8, 1993, prosecutor No. 9288526Y filed charges against Ms. J. and another 93 persons “as perpetrators of the crime of terrorism and conspiracy to commit a terrorist act against the State.” The prosecutor specified the acts that would be attributed to some of the accused in relation to El Diario. However, he did not describe the acts attributed specifically to Ms. J., 165 but merely, in general, indicated that “the other accused […] were responsible for the work of printing, editing, distribution, and circulation of the voice [of Shining Path] El Diario; while others of the accused were in charge of writing some of the articles included in this newspaper in order to disseminate the ideology and other plans of [Shining Path].” 166 On February 1, 1993, the Higher Court of Lima declared that “there were grounds to proceed to an oral hearing against [Ms. J.] for annexes to the answering brief, annex 38, folio 3691). 160 Preliminary statement of April 28, 1992, before the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 39, folio 3693). 161 Preliminary statement of May 26, 1992, before the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 40, folio 3695). 162 Cf. Preliminary statement of June 10, 1992, before the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 41, folios 3697 to 3701); preliminary statement of June 15, 1992, before the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 42, folios 3705 to 3709); 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, folios 4740 to 4745), and preliminary statement of August 3, 1992, before the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima (file of annexes to the State’s brief of June 24, 2013, annex 18, folios 4745 to 4747). 163 Report of the special prosecutor for terrorism No. 118-92.9 of September 9, 1992 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 43, folio 3740). 164 Cf. Decision of the Forty-third Investigative Judge of Lima of October 28, 1992 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 44, folios 3743 to 3745). 165 Regarding Ms. J., he merely indicated that “the [13] accused [who included Ms. J.] in order to evade their responsibilities and the action of justice prepared alibis that lack any legal basis or logic.” Charges brought by the Public Prosecution Service on January 8, 1993 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 45, folio 3756 to 3759). 166 Charges brought by the Public Prosecution Service on January 8, 1993 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 45, folio 3756 and 3758). Furthermore, the said indictment indicates that the other accused, who included Ms. J., “deny any participation in the perpetration of the crime investigated, narrating in great detail the way and circumstances in which they had been raided by the police, and all affirming that they have no connection whatsoever to Shining Path and that they were unaware that El Diario was linked to this subversive group.” In addition, the indictment indicates that some of the accused, including Ms. J., “in order to evade their responsibilities and the action of justice prepared alibis that lack any legal basis or logic.” Charges brought by the Public Prosecution Service on January 8, 1993 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 45, folios 3756 and 3757). 32