39 73(45) On June 9, 2004, the Fourth Criminal Court Specializing in Crimes of Terrorism decided to extend the pre-trial investigation for the peremptory period of 15 days, “because, according to an examination of the case file and owing to the facts that occurred at the time described below […] the defendant, María Teresa De la Cruz Flores, cc. ‘Elíana’, is accused of being an ‘activist’ within the subversive organization, Sendero Luminoso, caring for patients, having performed operations from 1989 to 1992; and this has been corroborated in statements made by Elisa Mabel Mantilla Moreno which appear in the case file […]; consequently, IT CLARIFIES the orders to open the pre-trial investigation of September 1, 1995, […], of September 16, 1995 [(supra para. 73(20) …] and of October 11, 1995 […], respectively; in order to charge the defendant, María Teresa De la Cruz Flores […], with the unlawful criminal acts perpetrated from 1989 to April 3, 1991, which are established and penalized by article 188 ‘E’, paragraph (b), (c) and (e) of the 1924 Penal Code, promulgated by Law No. 24,651, modified by Law No. 24,953; the acts committed after April 3, 1991, are established and penalized in article 321, paragraphs 2 and 6 of the 1991 Penal Code, promulgated in Legislative Decree No. 635; the acts committed after May 5, 1992, are established and penalized in article 4 of Decree Law No. 25,475, and the corresponding arrest warrant subsists.”77 73(46) On July 1, 2004, at the request of the alleged victim’s defense lawyer and for the first time during the proceeding, a confrontation procedure was conducted between the alleged victim and Jacqueline Aroni Apcho, she said that Mrs. De La Cruz Flores was not “Elíana”, that she did not know Mrs. De La Cruz Flores, that she did not recall the physical characteristics of “Elíana” and that she did not know the latter’s real name. Moreover, two other testimonial statements made by individuals identified with the code Nos. WN203002 and 1MMC004 said that “they did not know” María Teresa De La Cruz Flores.78 73(47) On July 8, 2004, the Fourth Criminal Court for Terrorism declared that the request of María Teresa De La Cruz Flores’ defense lawyer to modify the detention order for one of conditional appearance was admissible. The court considered that “new facts cast doubt on the adequacy of the evidence that led to the coercive detention measures; on the other hand, the personal condition of the defendant should be borne in mind; she has a known domicile and profession, […] which suggests that there is no danger of her escaping or obstructing probative activities.” The following restrictions were ordered to the category of conditional appearance a) not to absent herself from her place 77 Cf. decision issued by the Fourth Criminal Court Specializing in Crimes of Terrorism on June 9, 2004 (file of appendixes to the final written arguments, appendix 3 to the final written arguments presented by the State, folios 1245 to 1250). 78 Cf. record of the procedure of confrontation between the defendant, María Teresa De la Cruz Flores de Blanco and the witness, Jacqueline Aroni Apcho on July 1, 2004 (file of appendixes to the final written arguments, appendix 8 to the final written arguments presented by the State, folios 1260 to 1263); testimonial statement of the person identified with code No. WN203002 made on July 6, 2004 (file of appendixes to the final written arguments, appendix 10 to the final written arguments presented by the State, folios 1266 to 1273); testimonial statement of the person identified with code No. 1MMC004 made on July 6, 2004 (file of appendixes to the final written arguments, appendix 11 to the final written arguments presented by the State, folios 1274 to 1279); decision issued by the Third Criminal Court specializing in crimes of terrorism on August 28, 2003 (file on merits, reparations, and costs, folios 963 to 966); decision issued by the Fourth Criminal Court for terrorism in file Nº 531-03 on July 8, 2004,(file on merits and reparations folios 781 to 789).