14 same acts and sentenced in two trials, inasmuch as the Military Justice relinquished competence to hear the case against her for treason, and referred the case for trial by the civil or civil courts. i. As to the claim that Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo's attorney was not informed of the charges against her, the State claimed that the attorney and the defendant repeatedly submitted observations on the facts and processing of the case -paragraphs 15, 34 and 37 of the application- which suggests that they were perfectly aware of the proceeding and were not impeded in the exercise of their rights. It also denies that the defense attorney or any other lawyer acting on Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo's behalf either in the military or civil courts, "had been subjected to intimidation or any other tactics that prevented them from freely practicing their profession." j. That on February 6, 1993, the date on which Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo was detained, a state of emergency had been declared in the Department of Lima and the Constitutional Province of Callao under Supreme Decree 006-93-DE-CCFFAA of January 19, 1993, for a period of sixty days starting on January 22, 1993. Further, the constitutional guarantees established in paragraphs 7 (inviolability of domicile), 9 (free choice of domicile, and freedom of transit within the national territory), 10 (freedom of unarmed association), and 20(g) (right to personal liberty and security except, inter alia, in cases of terrorism) of Article 2 of the 1979 Constitution of Peru had been suspended. k. In its closing arguments, Peru maintained that when the Commission crossexamined the witnesses and experts at the public hearing held on February 5, 1997, it put questions that had no connection with the purpose of the hearing. The State therefore requested that any statements by the witnesses and expert opinions unrelated to the purpose for which they were called be deemed neither to have been asked nor answered. It further argued that Ms. Loayza-Tamayo's appearance as a witness before the Court was an anomaly inasmuch as she was a party with a direct interest in the outcome of the case. The State argued that the testimony of Luis Guzmán-Casas, Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides, Juan Alberto Delgadillo-Castañeda, and Pedro Telmo Vega-Valle, who were sentenced to prison terms for the crimes of terrorism and treason, were biased as they had an interest in the outcome of the instant Case. VIII 39. The Commission submitted copies of a series of documents and statements concerning cumulative cases against a number of persons, including Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, in the military and civil courts, and of reports from the Office of the Attorney General, judgments, and copies of statements and declarations. It also submitted official communications from several State departments, newspaper clippings, two videos, reports from various organizations, and some Peruvian legal texts. 40. The State produced evidence in the form of numerous documents relating to the trials in the civil and military authorities, including prosecution reports, judgments, copies of statements and declarations, official registration of domicile, and some Peruvian legal texts. 41. In the instant Case the Court evaluates the documents submitted by the Commission and the State, which, incidentally, were neither refuted nor contested.