77 Military Justice.” The military court remitted the case to the ordinary jurisdiction, merely changing the name of the crime with which the defendant had originally been charged to the crime of collaboration, based on the same facts. 130(2) Regarding the trial before the civil court a) The absence of a clear definition of the criminal conduct “means that Decree Law [No.] 25,475 violates Article 8(1) and 8(2)(b), which require, respectively, a hearing to substantiate any accusation of a criminal nature and prior notification in detail to the accused of the charges against him”; b) The judgment against the alleged victim in the National Terrorism Chamber “was a complete failure” as regards impartiality and due process. “During the civil trial, the same invalid evidence and the testimony of coaccused witnesses obtained during the trial in the military jurisdiction were used.” At the start of the trial before the civil court, “the examining judge […] received and adopted the case file of the military trial, and proceeded on the basis of those documents”; c) In the ordinary jurisdiction, the only change was the sentence, which was reduced “from life imprisonment for her alleged role of leader of a subversive group[,] to 20 years’ imprisonment for her alleged ‘secondary collaboration’ with this group”; d) In this case, it “was presumed that [Lori] Berenson was guilty, unless she could prove her innocence. She was obliged to make a testimonial statement.” On the first day of the hearing, the alleged victim was kept in a type of “cage with bars, guarded by four soldiers.” After she protested, following photographs and reports in the press, she was authorized to remain in front of “the cage.” Following her detention in November 1995, the Peruvian press referred to the alleged victim as “the MRTA terrorist” or “la gringa terrorista”; e) In an interview published in the Spanish newspaper El País on April 22, 2001, Judge Ibazeta, President of the National Terrorism Chamber, stated that the verdict “will depend of whether her story convinces us.” During the hearings, the Superior Prosecutor indicated that the alleged victim lied because, since she was “the accused,” she was the person who “would benefit most from lies.” During the hearings in the civil court “the negative and prejudicial comments” continued; f) The National Terrorism Chamber that tried Lori Berenson in the ordinary jurisdiction “lacked competence, independence and impartiality”. The judges and the judicial personnel who took part “had served in the Fujimori and Montesinos Government.” The judges appointed “on a provisional basis” during the Fujimori administration were “prone to corruption and to complying with the State’s wishes”; g) Judge Borda was a “provisional provincial judge […] dependent on the political authorities,” who, during the presentation of evidence, “devoted himself to seeking evidence that did not correspond to the charge” and “obtain[ed] testimonies from the civil trials of the same witnesses who had