83. On March 31, 1989, when she was detained, Ms. Aparicio was questioned about the papers that had been confiscated in her home and about her affiliation to the Shining Path, as well as about her opinion on the attacks perpetrated by that insurgent organization, to which she replied that she did not belong to said party and disagreed with the methods that were described because she felt that “it was not the right way to tackle social problems […].”59 84. Regarding the reasons for the detention of Professor Aparicio, in the report issued on April 5, 1989 by the National Police Force, the following was indicated: II. CONCLUSIONS […] F. It is proven that […] and Teresa DIAZ APARICIO (35); belongs to the support system of the PCP-SL, in charge of providing housing, food, medical assistance, and other needs that are requested by the militants of this insurgent-terrorist group.60 85. The alleged victim was transferred to the 41st Public Provincial Penitentiary of Lima, so that relevant investigations could be conducted for the alleged crime of terrorism.61 On April 7, 1989 the Provincial Criminal Prosecution Service ordered that she be released because it believed that “on the basis of the house search carried out, the statements that were made, the affidavits from criminal and judiciary records that were gathered, as well as the steps that were taken, at present there is no evidence to file for the conviction of the accused TERESA DIAZ APARICIO […] 62. 86. After her release, on August 11, 1989, a habeas corpus petition was filed complaining that, the day before, members of the National Police Force, without any search warrant, violently broke into her home where her mother was. Since they were unable to find her at home, the security personnel carefully searched her belongings and told her mother that she should go the following day to the Counter-Terrorism Department, without leaving any written notification or subpoena. 63 87. On August 17, 1989, the habeas corpus petition was ruled inadmissible on the basis of the investigatory statements received from the Deputy Chief and Chief of DIRCOTE, who stated they “had not ordered the personnel of said police agency to enter the house of the person referred to, nor did they notify her to go to department on the eleventh day of the current month, because to date there has been no investigation against the above-mentioned person, […] that it has not been established that in DIRCOTE there might be a pending investigation against the complainant that might be threatening her freedom by a possible detention.”64 88. In statements made to judicial authorities, Federico Díaz Aparicio indicated that, after these incidents, his sister told him she felt she was being watched by the National Police. 65 59 Annex 7. Statement made by Teresa Díaz Aparicio. Report No. 276-04-DIRINCRI-PNP/DIVNHON.GOP of March 31, 1989, pages 395, Annex 3, Volume II, of the communication from the petitioners of May 22, 2012. 60 Annex 9. Communication from the petitioners of May 22, 2012, Annex 3, National Police Force of Peru, Report No. 888-D3SDIRCOTE of April 5, 1989. 61 Annex 9. See document of the National Police Force of Peru, Report No. 888-D3-SDIRCOTE, page 17, folio 188. Communication from the petitioners of May 22, 2012, Annex 3. 62 Annex 10. Public Prosecutor’s Office. Resolution issued by the Provincial Criminal Prosecution Service of Lima, April 7, 1989. Communication from the petitioners of May 22, 2012, Annex 4. 63 Annex 11. Habeas corpus petition filed against the Director of DIRCOTE for threat of arbitrary detention to the detriment of TERESA DIAZ APARICIO on August 11, 1989. Communication from the petitioners of May 22, 2012, Annex 5. 64 Annex 11. Court notification for a habeas corpus petition filed against the Director of DIRCOTE for threat of arbitrary detention to the detriment of TERESA DIAZ APARICIO, August 17, 1989. Communication from the petitioners of May 22, 2012, Annex 5. 65 Annex 12. Habeas corpus petition appeal filed by Federico Aparicio with the Judge of the Nineteenth Criminal Court of Lima, on May 10, 2002. Communication from the petitioners of May 22, 2012, Annex 6.