13 arbitrary detention, and only once denounced the torture he was subjected to, but no written record was made of his testimony. d. Testimony of María Elena Castillo, journalist, La Republica newspaper, Lima, Peru. When implementation of the anti-terrorism laws began in 1992, complaints began to come in from people who had been accused, without evidence, of terrorism or treason against the fatherland, prompting the press to investigate the issue of the innocent in prisons. Many of the complaints received by the press, in the context of the struggle against subversion, dealt with the conviction of innocent people and with illegal treatment and torture attributable to the police when conducting interrogations and to the military when making arrests. In many cases, torture could not be proven because the person affected did not denounce it out of fear or because of threats to him or his family, or because the existing evidence was insufficient. To a certain extent, the anti-terrorism laws contributed to this situation, since lawyers were not given free access to prisons and the work of prosecutors was made very difficult. Members of the security forces were investigated for these facts, but she has no knowledge of any sanctions actually being applied. In any case, with the approval of the Amnesty Law of 1995, such acts could no longer be punished. This law granted amnesty to all the members of the security forces and civilians who were the subject complaints, investigations, trials or convictions, for acts committed in the struggle against terrorism. She learned of Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides’ case, and the conditions surrounding his arrest, from the case involving María Elena Loayza-Tamayo. People come out of prison with their lives turned upside down, with their families is crisis, and without work. Since the State does not compensate those who have been pardoned, there was no compensation for Mr. Benavides. e. Testimony of Víctor Álvarez-Pérez, Luis Alberto CantoralBenavides’ defense lawyer He became Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides’ defense lawyer in April 1993. When he took the case, it was in the military jurisdiction and two judgments had already been rendered: one, from the Naval Investigating Judge, and another, from the Superior War Council, in which his client had been acquitted of the crime of treason against the fatherland. When Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides was arrested, there was no outstanding warrant for his arrest, he was not being sought, and he had not been accused. In the indictment read by the Military Prosecutor for the crime of treason against the fatherland, Cantoral-Benavides was accused of belonging to the Movimiento de Socorro Popular – of Sendero Luminoso – and of being one of the leaders of this subversive group. It was difficult to mount a defense; in force at the time was Law 25.475, which prohibited lawyers from defending more than one person being tried for the crimes of treason against the fatherland and terrorism; the documentation on the trial was voluminous, containing information on more than 20 defendants; he was given one day to read the file, but actually only had one afternoon to do so, which means he could not study it in detail, making it impossible to mount a proper defense. In the hearing before the Supreme Council of Military Justice, he was given 15 minutes to present his oral argument. He was taken to the venues of the other military trials blindfolded and with a hood over his head. When Mr. Cantoral-Benavides was transferred to the prison in Ica, the witness had to travel great distances to visit with his client, and to be present when he gave his statement. There, he was able to meet with his client in person, but a policeman