59 terrorists (included in Article 5 of the said Decree Law)192 (the highlighting appears in the original). 88(70) On July 3, 2001, the alleged victim’s defense lawyer filed an appeal for annulment against the judgment delivered by the National Terrorism Chamber on June 20, 2001.193 88(71) On February 13, 2002, the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru, when examining the alleged victim’s degree of participation, stated: The defendant did not have functional control over the act, which is an element that defines the conduct of co-perpetrators. Consequently, the defendant should be considered a secondary accomplice or accessory under paragraph 2 of Article 28 of the Penal Code, since her collaboration consisted in causal support, without which it would also have been possible to meet the requirements of that type of crime, and this should be considered an extenuating circumstance pursuant to the final part of this provision.194 88(72) Finally, the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru declared that “IT WOULD NOT ANNUL the appealed judgment of June 20, 2001, CONVICT[ING] LORI HELENE BERENSON MEJÍA as perpetrator of the crime of terrorism against the State characterized by acts of collaboration, described in paragraph (a) and (b) of Article 4 of Decree Law 25,475, to TWENTY YEARS’ IMPRISONMENT […]”195 (The highlighting appears in the original). Detention conditions 88(73) When she had been found guilty by the military court, in the judgment of January 11, 1996 (supra para. 88(30)), Lori Berenson was transferred to the Yanamayo Prison, 3,800 meters above sea level,196 from January 17, 1996, to October 7, 1998.197 88(74) While she was in the Yanamayo Prison, the alleged victim experienced the following conditions: 88(74)(i) She was subjected to the regime established for those processed for and/or convicted of terrorism and treason, which restricted the hours of 192 Cf. judgment handed down by the National Chamber of Criminal Organizations and Groups on June 20, 2000 (file of appendixes to the application, tome 2, appendix 23, folios 662 to 739; and file of probative evidence provided by the State, tome 11, folios 8967 to 9045). 193 Cf. appeal for annulment of July 3, 2000, and its expansion of July 4, 2004, filed by the alleged victim’s defense lawyer against the judgment of June 20, 2004 (file of probative evidence provided by the State, tome 11, folios 9082 to 9096). 194 Cf. judgment of the Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of February 13, 2002 (file of appendixes to the application, tome 2, appendix 24, folios 740 to 748; and file of probative evidence provided by the State, tome 11, folios 9106 to 9114). 195 Cf. judgment of the Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of February 13, 2002 (file of appendixes to the application, tome 2, appendix 24, folios 740 to 748; and file of probative evidence provided by the State, tome 11, folios 9106 to 9114). 196 Cf. report of the Peruvian Ombudsman on the Yanamayo Prison, Puno, of August 25, 1999 (file of appendixes to the application, tome 2, appendix 26, folio 752). 197 Cf. record of Lori Berenson’s imprisonment issued by the Executive Office of the Prison Registry of the National Penitentiary Institute on June 20, 2002 (file of probative evidence provided by the State, tome 12, appendix 4, folio 9121).