Court referred to the evidence in the case file and offered different response to the arguments submitted by the victims’ defense counsel. 37. The State also indicated that, on August 12, 2005, Mr. Astorga Valdez was granted the prison regime benefit of parole and indicated that he had returned to Chile in December 2008. The State added that Mr. Mellado Saavedra and Mrs. Pincheira Sáez were granted the benefit of parole on October 18, 2008, and on May 29, 2007, respectively. 38. The representatives questioned the following aspects of the proceedings under the ordinary [civil] justice system: i) “[t]he factual grounds are the same as those the victims were accused of under the military justice system in the proceedings for treason,” and the legal grounds for the complaint is article 2 of Decree Law No. 25.475; ii) “[t]he measures requested […] reiterate the proceedings under the military justice system and the Anti-Terrorism Directorate (DINCOTE), the nullity of which was expressly declared in the judgment of the Court”; iii) “[t]he court decreed the confidentiality of the proceedings; in other words, that the lawyers could not have access to the file until the preliminary statements had been taken from the accused” and, consequently, this confidentiality was maintained for two and a half months; iv) “the police attestations were used […] as evidence and this violated due process, because they were often obtained through pressure, threat, or torture under the preceding dictatorial regime”; v) “the testimony of the “repentants” was used, violating due process, because, for a testimonial statement to be legally valid, the person making it should not have any interest in the result of the proceedings and, an individual who “repents” may improve his legal situation and, thus, his testimony is often not objective”; vi) the principle of the public nature of the proceedings was not respected, because television cameras were not allowed into the oral hearing; vii) “the crime of terrorism [was erroneously considered] a crime against humanity,” and viii) they were not allowed to intervene in the testimony of those who had taken advantage of the Repentance Law, limiting the right of defense. Consequently, the representatives concluded that “[t]he Peruvian State has only assumed compliance with the Court’s judgment as regards the new trial and, according to the defense, it did not ensure the conditions for fair and due process.” 39. Regarding the final decisions of the Supreme Court in this case, the representatives indicated that they fail to comply with the judgment of the InterAmerican Court by applying article 3(b) and (c) of Decree Law No. 25.475, particularly “owing to the very severe punishments imposed, which are not proportionate to the alleged responsibility of the accused.” They alleged that the “Criminal Chamber illegally decided that the maximum and the minimum punishment were the same” and that “if they had ordered a minimum punishment of 20 years,” the reductions in the sentences would have implied the release of Mrs. Pincheira Sáez and Mr. Mellado Saavedra. Regarding these accused, they indicated that the Supreme Court had attributed them with “greater responsibility than that which had been proven and admitted” and that, although “they both admitted that they had collaborated with the MRTA,” there is no evidence for the argument of the Criminal Chamber “that all the charges must be accepted in order to ensure a sincere confession.” Regarding Mr. Astorga Valdez, they indicated that the “Chamber based itself on the testimony of a repentant, who refused to appear before the court”; that the “defense was unable to question the repentant”; that “it had not taken the testimony of another repentant into account,” and that there was “subjectivity and irregularity” in the assessment of the evidence. Regarding the personal liberty of the victims, the representatives reported that several requests for their release had been submitted as well as applications for habeas corpus requesting their immediate release owing to “excessive imprisonment,” “all of which were denied,” based on alleged “political rather than juridical arguments.” 40. For its part, the Commission, in its latest brief on this reparation, presented on April 3, 2006, indicated that it was “concerned” about the specific irregularities reported 11