20. The petitioner alleges that the State of Peru violated his right to protection of his honor and dignity because he had been presented to public opinion as an alleged member of the armed group Sendero Luminoso who had had recourse to the Law on Repentance. 21. He further alleges a violation of Article 9 of the Convention, since the characterization of the crime of terrorism in Decree Law No. 25475, pursuant to which the investigation against him had been conducted, is the basis of the characterization established in Decree Law No. 25659, which had been called into question by the Inter-American Court as violating the principle of legality. 22. As regards the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioner states that his family did not bring legal action while he was being held in detention, since they had been threatened by the Peruvian army that, should they do so, the petitioner would not regain his freedom. He further alleges that a state of emergency had been declared in the city of Huánuco under the control of the Political/Military Command, which was headed by the author of the alleged violations, Colonel EP Eduardo Negrón Montestruque as the highest authority in the zone. As a result, the constitutional guarantees were not in force and proceedings to enforce the guarantees were not protected, since the organs of justice and oversight of the city were subordinated to the Political/Military Command. 23. The petitioner alleges that immediately upon regaining his freedom, he had lodged a complaint against the Provincial Prosecutor of Huánuco, Ricardo Robles y Coz, and against the Senior Prosecutor of Huánuco, Carlos Schult Vela, for the crimes of abuse of authority against the jurisdictional function and malfeasance in office as a consequence of his arbitrary detention. However, as indicated in the complaint brought before the Inter-American Commission, in a decision dated May 8, 1998, the Internal Oversight Office of the Attorney General ordered the closing of the file on the complaint, in application of Article 4 of Amnesty Law No. 26479. 24. The petitioner also filed a complaint with the Executive Council of the Judicial Branch, which in its decision of January 17, 1995, decided to demand from the army a comprehensive investigation of the case and the punishment of those responsible and to dispatch an official letter to the Attorney General of the Nation and to the Ministry of the Interior to the same end. He alleges that, despite that decision, the State has not fulfilled its obligation to conduct a timely and effective investigation. He further alleges that he had made various approaches to the Human Rights Commission of the Democratic Constituent Congress, to the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation and to the Ministry of Defense, all without result. 25. As regards respecting the deadline for presentation of the petition, which had been challenged by the State, the petitioner attached a copy of a formal complaint that had been sent to APRODEH on January 13, 1995 and of a communication that had been sent by fax to the Inter-American Commission on March 15, 1995, which referred to the complaint. B. The State 26. The State for its part argued that the petitioner had been detained in order to establish his criminal responsibility for the crime of terrorism, since a person subject to the regime of repentance had pointed him out as a member of an organization with links to Sendero Luminoso. The State indicated that a statement of this type constitutes sufficient reason to justify a preliminary investigation and provisional detention, particularly in the context of a state of emergency.5 27. The State added that the detention of the petitioner was governed by the norms laid down in Act No. 24150 as modified by Decree Law No. 749, which govern police action in zones declared to be in a state of emergency, as well as the provisions contained in the legislation on 5 Observations of the State of December 26, 1996. 4