17 she be investigated for treason against the fatherland and terrorism. Later, she was also investigated by the governing body of the judiciary. h. Testimony of Julio Guillermo Neira-Castro, retired commandant of the Peruvian police, expert witness for the defense on internal processing. He referred to the inconsistency of the handwriting evidence used to determine the guilt of Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides, since he had been called as an expert witness for the defense in the trial against Cantoral-Benavides for terrorism. The goal was to determine who had prepared the anonymous documents that contained certain street addresses in the city of Lima. According to the police, their evidence showed that Mr. Cantoral-Benavides had written the word “canchas” (sport field or court) which appeared in the document. However, the police had not taken the appropriate handwriting samples, thus making it impossible to determine authorship. Several samples must be taken and the person must be allowed to write freely; Luis Alberto Cantonal Benavides was handcuffed when the samples were taken. The expert witness for the defense studied three documents, one entitled “cronograma,” (timetable) a sketch and another entitled “plan de accion,” (plan of action) and came to the conclusion that the sketch contained in the document entitled “Volanteo” (distribution of leaflets) was not made by Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides. As regards the other documents, it was impossible to determine authorship given the poor quality of the photocopies, which were not even legible and certainly could not be used to establish authorship. i. Expert testimony of Arsenio Oré-Guardia, an attorney specializing in criminal procedural law. The phenomenon of terrorism, which was a fact of life in Peru from the 1980s to the mid-1990s, was a new kind of crime for which the Peruvian criminal system was not prepared. This led to the passage of Decree Laws No. 25.475, of May 6, 1992, No. 25.659, of August 13, 1992, and No. 25.708, of September 10, 1992, known as the anti-terrorism laws, which had an impact on the principles of criminal procedural legality and of substantive criminal legality. The implementation of these laws violated the principle of due process. As a common characteristic, Peruvian legislation creates a system that is accusatory and humanitarian and calls for minimal intervention by the criminal system, which co-exists with a system that is highly inquisitorial and authoritarian, as, for example, in the case of the antiterrorism laws. Thanks to the implementation of these laws, the role of those in the penal system in the investigation and judgment of crimes changed; in trials for terrorism and treason against the fatherland, the police participated actively in the investigation. Consequently, it is basically up to the police to decide in which court system each case is to be heard, and whether a citizen being investigated is innocent or guilty. In many aspects, the anti-terrorism laws violated the Constitution. As regards the motion for review, the judgment of the Supreme Council of Military Justice is res judicata in the military courts, and cannot be reviewed by a regular court, because this would violate the principle of non bis in idem. Judgments of acquittal cannot even be reviewed by the same jurisdiction, and guilty verdicts are reviewed only if specific cause can be shown. For a person acquitted in the military courts to be convicted in the regular courts for the same facts, is a perversion of due process.