5 accusations, a series of untruths were distributed in the country’s press and television media: for example, Ministry of Defense official communiqué No. 068/RRPP/F-H, which contradicts police reports No. 24-DECOTE-PMCHCO and No. 09-DECOTE-PNC-HCO/AD that establish the date and method of his alleged arrest and subsequent investigation. 23. The petitioner contends that there are contradictory police reports of the arrest. He states that while one report states that Mr. Galindo voluntarily requested application of the Repentance Law on October 15 and was therefore not arrested during a police operation, the Ministry of Defense’s communiqué of October 17, 1994, reports that Mr. Galindo was detained during an operation and later stated that he wanted to apply for the benefits of the Repentance Law. The petitioner indicates that the evidence drawn from the applicant’s statement and from a broadening statement given by the applicant contains utter falsehoods intended to show that Mr. Galindo was appealing to the Repentance Law without meeting the requirements and demands of Law 25499 and Supreme Decree 01593, which regulated the benefits available to people subject to the Repentance Law. Specifically, as evidence that those documents are false, he points to the absence from them of the fingerprints required by Law 25499. 24. As evidence that he did not seek the benefits of the Repentance Law (No. 25499) and its Regulations (D.S. 015/93-JUS; Article 1.II.a and Article 6) and that this law should not have been applied to him, the petitioner points to the nonexistence of the three requirements set by the law for its application: (1) voluntarily provision of timely and truthful information revealing details of terrorist groups or organizations and their functions; (2) identification of leaders, heads, chiefs, and/or main members; (3) information on future terrorist actions for their prevention or neutralization. The petitioner claims that since Mr. Galindo did not provide that information, the resolutions granting him the benefit of exemption from punishment under the Repentance Law violate the principle of legality in that they contain falsehoods. The petitioner contends that Mr. Galindo identified no one, in that the people he spoke of in his statement had already been fully identified by the police and taken into custody. He also states that the alleged information that Mr. Galindo provided was never checked or verified as required by Article 3 of Law 25499, and neither did the provincial prosecutor simultaneously file charges with a criminal judge as required by Article 3.a of the same law. 25. The petitioner alleges that while Mr. Galindo was being illegally held at the Military Barracks, he only had access to drinking water for 10 minutes in the morning and 10 in the evening. He further alleges that during the night, shots were fired at the window of his room and that in the early morning hours he heard the anguished cries of people who were being punished. He also alleges that the authorities permitted incidents to occur in the early morning hours with the aim of driving fear into him and breaking him down, such as the entry into his cell while he was asleep of the “hooded repentant female terrorist,” who would identify him as the “democratic attorney.” He contends that Mr. Galindo was also psychologically pressured by Col. Eduardo Negrón Montestruque, the military commanding officer in Huánuco, to seek application of the Repentance Law and identify the president of the Superior Court Huánuco and two other judges as members of Shining Path, which he refused to do. 26. The petitioner reports that on October 26, 1994, the Attorney General of the Nation, Dr. Blanca Nélida Colán Maguiña, visited the military barracks and spoke with the detainee; Mr. Galindo informed her of the arbitrary acts and psychological mistreatment he was receiving, but she did nothing about it. The petitioner indicates that although the Human Rights Commission of the Democratic Constituent Congress made two official visits to the city of Huánuco to meet with Mr. Galindo, its members were unable to speak with the alleged victim on the orders of the commanding officer of the Political/Military Command, who was in charge of the military barracks where he was being held. He says that Mr. Galindo Cárdenas was first prevented by the army from being visited by members of the International Red Cross and that no response was forthcoming to the request made by the president of the Huánuco Supreme Court for information on the alleged victim’s legal situation. 27. The petitioner states that on November 4, 1994, the Provincial Prosecutor found that there were no grounds for charging the alleged victim and, 31 days after his arrest, he was released. He notes that the provincial prosecutor’s resolution refers to Article 4 of Decree Law 25475 but fails to specify the subsection