19 inadmissibility of the pre-trial release of the accused during the preliminary investigation; the prohibition to offer as witnesses those who had intervened, owing to their functions, in the preparation of the police attestation; the holding of the trial in private hearings; the inadmissibility of any recusal of the judges or judicial auxiliaries intervening in the proceedings; the participation of “faceless” judges and prosecutors, and permanent solitary confinement during the first year of any imprisonment terms that were imposed. 41 In addition, Decree Law No. 25,659 established the inadmissibility of “applications for amparo by detainees.” 42 58. Disregard of basic guarantees. In this regard, the CVR indicated that the absence of basic guarantees for detainees and of control or supervision of the police actions during the pre-trial investigation, the fact that, in practice, the police attestation became the sole evidence during the trial, and the compulsory application of the repentance law, together with a policy of basing promotion on the number of terrorists detained, resulted in a series of abuses by the National Counter-terrorism Directorate (hereinafter “DINCOTE”) 43 in Lima and its agencies in the police regions. Among others, it is worth mentioning the institutionalization of indiscriminate arrests, the planting or fabricating of evidence by police agents, the prosecution and conviction of innocent people, as well as the renewed increase in the perpetration of acts of torture (to obtain statements in which detainees pleaded guilty or accused others), and sexual violence against those detained. 59. Amendments to the laws and political changes. The State has pointed out that, since 1997, various changes have been made in the anti-terrorism laws in Peru. 44 However, the most important amendments were made following the re-establishment of the democratic institutional framework on January 3, 2003, when the Constitutional Court of Peru delivered a judgment in which it analyzed the alleged unconstitutionality of some provisions of Decree Laws Nos. 25,475, 25,659, 25,708, 25,880 and 25,744. The Constitutional Court concluded that various substantive and procedural provisions of the anti-terrorism laws were unconstitutional and established a new way of interpreting other provisions. 45 A.3. The practice of detentions, torture, and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment at the time of the facts 60. The CVR received thousands of reports of acts of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment perpetrated over the period from 1980 to 2000. In its final report, it asserted that, of the 6,443 acts of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment it had recorded, 75% corresponded to acts attributed to State officials or individuals acting with their authorization and/or acquiescence, 23% corresponded to the subversive group Shining Path, 46 1% to the subversive group MRTA, and 2% to undetermined elements. 61. The Court has recognized that a generalized practice of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment existed in Peru in 1993 in connection with criminal investigations into the crimes of 41 Cf. Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru, supra, para. 73.4, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 71. 42 Decree Law No. 25,659 of August 7, 1992 (evidence file, folio 1971). 43 DINCOTE was created on November 8, 1991, and replaced the Counter-terrorism Directorate (DIRCOTE). The State created DINCOTE as a specialized agency of the National Police in charge of preventing, reporting and combating terrorist activities and treason. 44 In this regard, the State presented the following: Supreme Decree No. 005-97-JUS of June 25, 1997 (evidence file, folios 6020 to 6029); Supreme Decree No. 008-97-JUS of August 20, 1997 (evidence file, folio 6031); Supreme Decree No. 003-99-JUS of February 18, 1999 (evidence file, folios 6033 and 6034), and Supreme Decree No. 006-2001-JUS of March 23, 2001 (evidence file, folios 6062 and 6063). 45 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of January 3, 2003, File No. 010-2002-AI/TCLIMA, findings 41, 112, 113 and 222 to 224 (evidence file, folios 5643, 5656, 5657 and 2677). 46 Cf. Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 66.