22 Cárdenas asked to apply for the benefit of DL No. 25499 (the Repentance Law), and was taken to the [-] 314-Yánac57 Huánuco Barracks in custody “FOR SECURITY REASONS”, and was assigned the number A1J054967.” 98. The Commission observes that according to the documents issued by the State, Mr. Galindo Cárdenas was detained under three different scenarios: 1) he was apprehended in a police operation (statements made by the President of the Republic on October 16, 1994; the communiqué from Frente Huallaga, October 17, 1994); 2) he turned himself in voluntarily in order to apply for the Repentance Law (Applicant’s Declaration of October 15, 1994); and 3) based on a preliminary investigation and having been fingered as being a member of the “Association of Democratic Lawyers” by a repentant terrorist (during the processing of the case with the IACHR). The petitioner has consistently maintained that he never applied for the benefits of the Repentance Law. 99. The Commission observes that the State has not provided a uniform date on which Mr. Galindo was deprived of his liberty; furthermore there are conflicting reports regarding the circumstances under which his detention occurred: the first version is the press communiqué issued by Defense Ministry Frente Huallaga, which states that the arrest was made on October 14, 1994, by Huánuco DECOTE/PNP personnel as the police were conducting pacification operations and that “following the preliminary investigations, [he] applied to avail himself of the benefits of the Repentance Law”; the second version is that the “Applicant’s Declaration” dated October 15, 1994, states the following: “I have, of my free will, come to the Huánuco Counter-Terrorism Department on October 15, 1994, asking to avail myself of the benefits of the Repentance Law in connection with the legal advice I provided to members of the PCP-SL”. Yet a third version was put forward to the effect that a review of DECOTE Huánuco’s passive files found that on October 17, 1994, Mr. Galindo asked to apply for the Repentance Law. Also, as the case was being processed with the IACHR, the State has maintained that he was taken into custody on the basis of a preliminary investigation, as the result of the fact that a repentant terrorist informed on him and named him as being a member of the association of “Democratic Lawyers.” 100. The Commission observes that from the time that Mr. Galindo was arrested, he told the national authorities (deposition signed on the occasion of the visit from the Attorney General of the Nation on October 26, 1994) and the international authorities (written statement to the International Committee of the Red Cross dated November 9, 1994), and the IACHR during the processing of his case, that he was arrested on October 16, 1994, in the Yánac military zone, after coming there to speak with the Head of the Huánuco Military-Political Command, at the latter’s request.. 101. The State has not informed the Commission of whether any investigation was conducted to clarify these contradictions and to explain the October 15, 1994 Declaration’s failure to comply with the legal requirements. All the State has said is that “the statements made by then President Alberto Fujimori to the press and the communiqué from the armed forces concerning Mr. Galindo’s arrest, have no legal value or effect whatever on the case, as they are merely informative in nature; hence, they may be inaccurate and subject to correction or amendment.” It noted that in Peru, the official record of the detention and application for the benefits of the Repentance Law is established on the basis of the police intervention and the action taken by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. 102. As for the burden of proof when the State’s failure to comply with certain guarantees provided for in Article 7 of the Convention is alleged, the Commission is reminded of the case law of the Inter-American Court, which holds that the burden of proof rests with the State: (…)the victim has no available means of proving this fact. His allegation is of a negative nature, and indicates the inexistence of a fact. The State declares that the information about the reasons for the arrest was provided. This is an allegation of a positive nature and, thus, susceptible of proof. Moreover, if it is recalled that, on other occasions, the Court has established that “in proceedings on human rights violations, the defense of the State cannot be based on the 57 Annex 35. Report No. 9- DECOTE-PNP-HCO./AD of March 25, 1996, signed by PNP Captain Alberto A. Campos Robles and Examiner Marciano Albarado León. Attachment to the State’s brief of August 6, 2002.