26 115. The Commission notes that, as it observed in the case of the Declaration dated October 15, 1994, the Declaration dated October 29, 1994 is signed by the police authority and by the representative of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, who are identified by name and position; it is also signed by the applicant, whose signature is illegible; there is no fingerprint taken from the applicant’s forefinger, as required under Article 11(f) of the Regulations Governing the Repentance Law. 116. The State alleges that the difference between the declaration given on October 15 and the declaration given October 29, 1994, is that Mr. Galindo signed the two documents differently. It points out that the October 15 declaration has his rubric, whereas the October 29 declaration bears a signature that the Government has compared with the signature on the person’s identification document, and has concluded that Mr. Galindo signed both documents. Nevertheless, the State has failed to explain why Mr. Galindo’s fingerprint is not on the document. The State has not advanced any opinion on the authenticity of Mr. Galindo’s signature on the statement that was allegedly misplaced, which also bears the signature of the Public Prosecutor and the print 78 taken of the forefinger. 117. On October 31, 1994, the Declaration of Repentance of applicant code number A1J05467 was 79 issued (Verification report number 24-DECOTE-PNP-HCO). The document states that on October 15, 1994, applicant code number A1J05467 came, of his own free will, to the offices of the PNP-Huánuco Counter-Terrorist 80 Department, “asking to avail [him]self of the benefits of the Repentance Law.” The report also states that the applicant 81 was being held in “special quarters and being provided with security to safeguard his personal integrity.” Summarizing, the Declaration states that the applicant asserts that the following terrorist criminals were members of the Peruvian Communist Party Sendero Luminoso: (c) “Mirko”, (c) “Guillermo”, (c) “Yersi” and (c) “Lida”. The report also states that the applicant: [a]s defense counsel to members of the PCP-SL who were detained and imprisoned in the CRAS-San Marcos in the city of Huánuco, claims to have no knowledge of the terrorist activities of the terrorist criminals in this city. 118. As for future terrorist activities, the application states that “he has no knowledge of such terrorist activities”; as for certain dangers, the applicant claims that “he has no knowledge of any dangerous 82 situations that subversive elements might cause.” Concerning the terrorist activities in which the applicant participated, the Report indicates the following: Applicant code number A1J054967 has confessed to providing support to the PCP-SL in the following way: DEC92. Toward the end of the year in question, applicant code … confesses to having served legal defense counsel in the case prosecuted against criminal terrorist Juan SANTAMARIA RAMOS (c) “Mirko”, at the request of the latter’s family members, who paid his professional fees. AUG93. Early this month, the applicant in question undertook to defend criminal terrorist Eduardo Elí NACION Ramos (c) “Beto”, whom JECOTE-PNP-Huánuco had under investigation for the crime of terrorism. Applicant’s services were retained at the request of family members and subversives Noemí Huaccha 78 Annex 24. Page six of the statement by Luis Antonio Galindo Cárdenas (46), signed by the examiner, Public Prosecutor’s Office, Dr. Víctor Aguirre Visag, the attorney deponent, Luis A. Galindo Cárdenas. Attached to the petitioner’s brief of January 3, 1996. 79 Annex 17. DECOTE-PNP-HCO Verification Report No. 24 of October 31, 1994. Attachment to the State’s brief of January 11, 2008. 80 Annex 17. DECOTE-PNP-HCO Verification Report No. 24 of October 31, 1994. Attachment to the State’s brief of January 11, 2008. 81 Annex 17. DECOTE-PNP-HCO Verification Report No. 24 of October 31, 1994. Attachment to the State’s brief of January 11, 2008. 82 Annex 17. DECOTE-PNP-HCO Verification Report No. 24 of October 31, 1994. Attachment to the State’s brief of January 11, 2008.