58 alleged victim, even though the witness had made a statement (supra para. 88(58)) “clearly, sincerely and simply, concerning a series of details, during the oral hearing on the search […,] because the uniforms would always have been found there, whoever searched the building, and even though the legal formalities in force were complied with during the procedure.”188 88(66) The judgment handed down by the National Terrorism Chamber on June 20, 2001, reached the “belief and certainty” that: the defendant’s degree of participation in these criminal acts corresponds to the definition of collaboration with terrorism, established and sanctioned by Article 4 of Decree Law [No. 25,475,] because her activities with Rosa Mita Calle in Congress, the ceding of her apartment in Calle La Técnica […] to hide Nancy Gilvonio Conde or Rosa Mita Calle, supplying information on Congress, and providing a place where the belongings of the MRT group could be left, are conclusively described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the said norm; the type of collaboration described in paragraphs (d) and (f) of the said Article, relating to participation in the tasks of indoctrination and financing subversive activities, have not been proved; although these conclusions do not contradict the other evidence presented, read and debated in the hearing.189 88(67) However, the National Terrorism Chamber considered that it had not been totally convinced that the alleged victim “had reached the stage of becoming a member and an integral part of the MRTA organization.”190 88(68) In relation to the applicable penalty, the National Terrorism Chamber indicated that, bearing in mind “the gravity of the results of her act of collaboration (armed confrontation, three deaths and hostage-taking); taking into account, nevertheless, that she did not participate in any armed or similar activity, […] the penalty to be imposed should be the lowest possible established in the norm, which was reasonable, despite its length.”191 88(69) The judgment handed down by the National Terrorism Chamber on June 20, 2001, decided that for the “reasons stated, the aspects relating to the facts and the penalty having been described and voted on, and with the moral integrity authorized by Article 283 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,” it ruled: CONVICTING: LORI HELENE BERENSON MEJÍA, as perpetrator of the crime of terrorism, characterized by acts of collaboration against the State (described and sanctioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article 4 of Decree Law 25,475), to TWENTY YEARS’ IMPRISONMENT […] ESTABLISH[ING]: in one hundred thousand new soles the amount corresponding to the civil reparation that the defendant must pay to the Peruvian State; and, ABSOLVING LORI HELENE BERENSON MEJÍA from the charge of committing the crime of terrorism, characterized by acts of collaboration (referred to in paragraphs (d) and (f) of Article 4 of Decree Law 25,475) and association with 188 Cf. judgment handed down by the National Chamber of Criminal Organizations and Groups on June 20, 2000 (file of appendixes to the application, tome 2, appendix 23, folios 662 to 739; and file of probative evidence provided by the State, tome 11, folios 8967 to 9045). 189 Cf. judgment handed down by the National Chamber of Criminal Organizations and Groups on June 20, 2000 (file of appendixes to the application, tome 2, appendix 23, folios 662 to 739; and file of probative evidence provided by the State, tome 11, folios 8967 to 9045). 190 Cf. judgment handed down by the National Chamber of Criminal Organizations and Groups on June 20, 2000 (file of appendixes to the application, tome 2, appendix 23, folios 662 to 739; and file of probative evidence provided by the State, tome 11, folios 8967 to 9045). 191 Cf. judgment handed down by the National Chamber of Criminal Organizations and Groups on June 20, 2000 (file of appendixes to the application, tome 2, appendix 23, folios 662 to 739; and file of probative evidence provided by the State, tome 11, folios 8967 to 9045).