5 23. According to the petitioners, the alleged incommunicado detention, torture, and inhuman detention conditions suffered by Gladys Carol Espinoza affected the physical integrity of her mother, Teodora Gonzales Vda. de Espinoza, who died in 2004, and of her siblings Marlene, Mirian, and Manuel Espinoza Gonzales. 24. Consequently, they hold that the Peruvian State is responsible for violating the rights enshrined in Articles 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and Article 7 of the Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women. B. State 25. Peru states that the alleged victim was initially detained in 1987 and was prosecuted for terrorism, for falsifying public documents, and for crimes against property and human life. It reports that on April 11, 1988, the Eleventh Correctional Court acquitted her of those charges and ordered the proceedings sent to the archive and her immediate release. On a remedy filed by the Public Prosecution Service, the Supreme Court of Justice ruled, on May 26, 1989, to annul the acquittal and for new oral proceedings to begin. Peru explains that since Ms. Espinoza Gonzales could not be located, the Superior Corporate National Chamber for Terrorism Cases ordered her arrest and issued the corresponding instructions to the police. 26. The State claims that after being taken into custody on April 17, 1993, Ms. Gladys Carol Espinoza was prosecuted for the crime of treason against the fatherland, of which she was convicted on June 25, 1993, by the Special Military Court of the Peruvian Air Force Judicial District and sentenced to life imprisonment and to the payment of five million sols as civil redress. It reports that on September 28, 1993, the Special Military Court upheld the sentence, and that on February 24, 1994, the Special Court of the Supreme Military Council for Treason against the Fatherland ruled there were no grounds for annulment. 27. Peru contends that in the legal proceedings before the military courts, the membership of the alleged victim in the MRTA was established, along with her involvement in attacks on private property and extortion against business owners and their families, with the intent of collecting funds for that insurgent organization. It claims that the National Police seized from her a grenade, a voice distorter, a beeper, and a notebook containing business owners’ names and telephone numbers. 28. In its initial submissions the State attested that the petition was lodged with the IACHR in May 1993, when the military courts had not yet handed down their final ruling in the charges brought against Ms. Gladys Carol Espinoza. Peru therefore contended that the complaint did not satisfy the requirement set by Article 46.1.a of the Convention. In its later submissions, Peru notes that on February 17, 2003, the National Terrorism Chamber voided the entire proceedings brought against Ms. Espinoza Gonzales before the military courts. It reports that on November 10, 2003, the First Senior Terrorism Prosecutor formulated new charges for crimes against public order in the form of terrorism. 29. The State notes that on March 1, 2004, the National Terrorism Chamber handed down a conviction and a 15-year prison term, along with other accessory penalties. It adds that in the deed of execution of November 24, 2004, the Supreme Court of Justice amended that ruling, increasing the prison term to 25 years. It reports that on March 16, 2005, the alleged victim filed a habeas corpus action with the Twenty-fourth Criminal Court of Lima, seeking the nonenforcement of the deed of execution of November 24, 2004. On February 19, 2007, Peru notes, that application was ruled groundless at the final instance by the Constitutional Court. 30. The State maintains that the arrest of Gladys Carol Espinoza absent a warrant, her holding in incommunicado detention, and her inability to file for habeas corpus relief were due to a legislative framework that was “rectified by the Peruvian State itself by means of the constitutional