22 more taxes, which he would then deduct from his income tax. When she was in the prison, she was the only person imprisoned for that crime; no one had ever been imprisoned for it. She suffered a series of physical ailments owing to the conditions to which she was submitted and the pressures exercised on her in prison. When she was in prison, police arrived with balaclava helmets and flashlights at about 2 a.m. or 3 a.m., they shone the flashlights on her face and did not let her sleep, they also did this when she was in the clinic. g) Testimony of Emilio Rodríguez Larraín Salinas, lawyer for Baruch Ivcher Bronstein���s wife and daughter, and Director of the Company when Mr. Ivcher was Chairman of the Board Lawyer and advisor to various companies; he was the lawyer for Mr. Ivcher’s wife and daughter, Michal, and he assisted them during several proceedings. He was a Director of the Company from 1996 until September 19, 1997, when the administration was handed over to the minority shareholders. During the time he was a Director, the Winter brothers never expressed any disagreement with the Channel’s editorial line, and at meetings, they appeared to have a good relationship with Mr. Ivcher and his family. It was a surprise when they came to an agreement with the Commander General of the Army, on May 23, 1997, and stated that they had no input into the editorial line of Channel 2. Since then, the Winter brothers adopted a hostile attitude towards Mr. Ivcher and the company directors. On July 11, 1997, the Winter brothers filed the first action for amparo and, two days later, the resolution that deprived Mr. Ivcher Bronstein of his nationality was published in the official gazette, El Peruano. There were elements in the text of the former that coincided with the contents of the resolution. The complaint was filed against Mr. Ivcher, but the precautionary measure requested also included Mrs. Ivcher’s property, owing to the existing joint ownership through marriage. Although she had not even been summoned to the proceeding, she appeared before the Public Law Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima on August 27, 1997, to request the annulment of the proceeding. The president of the Chamber attempted to bar her report, affirming that Mrs. Ivcher was not a party to the proceeding, but as the media were present at the hearing, the witness told the president that she would make a complaint against him for restricting her right to defense; consequently, after consulting other members of the Chamber, he authorized her to submit her report. The action for amparo filed by the Winter brothers was admitted immediately, but the proceedings to recognize Mrs. Ivcher’s right were delayed by for between eight months and two and a half - almost three - years. On September 12, the request for annulment was declared without merit, and it was indicated that at no time had Mrs. Ivcher’s rights been affected and the only intention of the action for amparo and the precautionary measure was to safeguard the Winter brothers’ rights. Consequently, on September 26, he filed a petition for a “recovery injunction” (interdicto [de] recobrar), because his clients were being divested of the ownership of their shares. Also, on December 1, 1997, he organized