16. On September 26 and October 1, 2007, the State submitted its observations in report No. 137-2007-JUS-SE/CESAPI, which was duly forwarded to the petitioner by the Commission, with a one month period in which to lodge her observations. 17. On October 23, 30, and November 2, 2007, the Executive Secretariat of the Commission received additional information submitted by the petitioner in the case, which was duly transmitted to the State on November 6, 2007. 18. On January 4, 2008, the Executive Secretariat of the IACHR acknowledged receipt of a request for precautionary measures on behalf of Mrs. Mónica Feria following her arrest in Germany in accordance with a request from INTERPOL Lima for her extradition and future trial in Peru. On January 7 and 9, 2008, the petitioner submitted additional information relating to said trial. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Petitioners 19. The petition states that from March to April 1992, Jesús Mónica Feria Tinta worked with an international television company making a documentary in various areas of Peru. She says that it was in this context when, on April 13, 1992 at 8.30 p.m., she was arrested while showing a potential tenant a property belonging to her parents. 20. The petitioner indicates that her arrest was carried out by a group of heavily armed men dressed as civilians, who belonged to the GEIN (Special Group of the State Security Forces made up of members of the police and army). They allegedly forced their way into the property where the petitioner was, broke the glass at the entranceway, grabbed her violently by the hair and pointed a gun at her. She states that once the men had gained entry, both she and the potential tenant were thrown to the floor and dragged to the other end of the room, tied up, blindfolded and indecently searched. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner was subjected to sexual assault by a member of the GEIN who “inserted his fingers into her vagina” while another officer held her by her legs on the floor. 1 The petitioner states that when she voiced a complaint regarding the situation she was hit by the officer. 21. The petitioner indicates that it was under those circumstances that she was interrogated about her participation in the television program she was working on. She then heard that she was to be transferred to a military barracks. According to the allegation, this, along with the fact that there was no prosecutor present, caused her to fear that she was about to be disappeared. She states that after an extended period of time, a prosecutor arrived at her place of detainment and, although he had not been present when the officers arrived at the property, he accepted unquestioningly the information provided by the officers present. She claims that her apartment was searched that same night without her presence or consent and without the presence of a lawyer. 22. The petitioner states that she was prevented from communicating with anyone but her captors and that she was transferred to a vehicle in which she remained blindfolded, handcuffed, terrified and being threatened with torture and death by her captors, while they spent the entirety of the night driving around the outskirts of Lima. She alleges that at around 6.00 am on April 14, 1992, she was taken to a building adjoining DINCOTE (National Terrorism Headquarters) where she was forced to remain in a room with other detainees all day. 1 On December 23, 1997 the Executive Secretariat of the IACHR received a document from the petitioner in which she asked for the English version of the petition to be accepted as the original version. Therefore, the above-mentioned allegation was taken from the English version of the document lodged by the petitioner on June 17, 1997 which reads as follows: “While petitioner was laying on the floor, bound and blindfolded, the man searched her, inserting his hands underneath her clothes, touching her body and raping her, by inserting his fingers in her vagina, while another man held her down by standing on her legs.” 3