concerning the actions of the police in the case. The petitioner and the State made additional observations on the matter, which were transmitted to the opposing side. 7. On August 11, 1997, the State requested a private hearing of the case, which was granted for October 9, 1997, in application of Article 67.3 of its Rules of Procedure then in force. 8. On December 26, 1996, the State indicated that it was willing to initiate a friendly settlement procedure, to which the petitioner agreed on various occasions. However, on October 15, 2001, the State considered that the friendly settlement procedure was not appropriate. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioner 9. The petitioner alleges that on or about September 15, 1994, while working as a provisional member of the High Court of Justice of Huánuco, he became aware through unofficial sources that his name had been mentioned in a statement to the police by a member of the subversive group Sendero Luminoso, who had accused him of being a member of that organization through the “Association of Democratic Lawyers”. 10. On October 14, 1994, the petitioner presented himself to the offices of the CounterTerrorism Command (hereinafter “JECOTE”) of the Huánuco National Police in order to clarify the situation. There he was told to go to the Army Military Headquarters, where he met with the Head of the Political/ Military Command, Colonel EP Eduardo Negrón Montestruque. The petitioner alleges that the meeting lasted approximately three hours and dealt with the accusations made against him and which were related to events that had taken place 1993, when he was ordered under threat to defend a person who had been detained for the crime of terrorism. He had abandoned the defense and had moved to Lima. At the end of the meeting, the petitioner returned to his job as a judge and participated in an extraordinary session of the High Court of Huánuco. 11. The petitioner alleges that on October 16, 1994, at about 9:30 a.m., the President of the Republic, Alberto Fujimori, made public statements in which he accused of being members of Sendero Luminoso the President of the High Court of Huánuco and the Rector of the Hermilio Valdizán University of Huánuco, among others, and reported that they had been detained in an operation and had sought recourse to Decree Law No. 25499, the Law on Repentance.2 At approximately 10:30 a.m. on the same day, the Head of JECOTE had turned up at his home and requested that he accompany him to the “Yanac” Army Headquarters to meet with the Head of the Political/ Military Command, to which he had agreed. Once at the Army Headquarters, he had been made to wait for approximately five hours before the Head of the Political/Military Command had informed him of the statements of President Fujimori, of which he had had no information up to that point and which were related to his case.3 The petitioner alleges that he denied belonging to that group and demanded that he be set free immediately. Nevertheless, he was detained in that military establishment from that day on. 12. The petitioner alleges that during his detention he was pressured psychologically by the Head of the Political/Military Command, Colonel EP Eduardo Negrón Montestruque, the Provincial Criminal Prosecutor, Ricardo Robles Coz, and members of the national police of Peru to implicate other judges as terrorists and to seek recourse to the Law on Repentance, which he refused to do. 2 In his communication of August 29, 2001, the petitioner provided two videotapes containing these and other statements. 3 The statements by President Fujimori were repeated on October 17, 1994 in official army communiqué No. 068/RRPP/F-H, in which it was indicated that the petitioner had been detained since October 14, 1994, which the petitioner alleges is incorrect. 2