42 the Situation of Human Rights in Peru, the Commission held that Article 12(c) of Decree Law No. 25475 is clearly 142 incompatible with Article 7(5) of the American Convention. 185. The Commission also notes that even though the President of the Huánuco-Pasco Superior Court sent a memorandum on October 17, 1994 to the Head of the Huánuco Military-Political Command seeking an answer as to whether some magistrate or member of that Court’s staff had availed himself of the Repentance Law, as some news outlets had reported, the Head of the Huánuco Military-Political Command did not provide that information; instead, on October 20, 1994, he told the President of the Huánuco Superior Court that he should direct his inquiry to the Head of the Military-Political Command of Frente Huallaga-Tarapoto or, failing that, to the Office of Public Relations of the Central Command of the Armed Forces-Lima.” The Commission also finds nothing to suggest that the Huánuco-Pasco Chief Superior Prosecutor answered the memorandum sent to him by the President of the Huánuco Superior Court asking to be informed about Magistrate Galindo’s situation because of the information reported in the Defense Ministry’s official communiqué of October 17, 1994. The Commission thus concludes that Mr. Galindo was not brought before a competent judicial authority while detained and that the authorities who had him in custody did not answer the instructions from the President of the Huánuco-Pasco Superior Court. 186. The Report of Peru’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission states that the anti-terrorist legislation introduced a new logic into the initial phase of a criminal proceeding and clearly established a demarcation separating the jurisdictional activity reserved for judges; the proceedings had all the guarantees typical of an adversarial proceeding, but in the phase of preliminary investigations the courts played no role at all. It was controlled by administrative authorities. The effect was to endow police institutions with a coercive power over personal liberty that had nothing to do with the commission of a criminal offense; the idea that the 143 preliminary phase would inevitably be followed by criminal prosecution and trial was not a given. Consequently, the new framework of anti-terrorist legislation imposed in 1992 put the police in control of the preliminary investigation into the crime of terrorism; the police had broad legal authorities, with no legal or jurisdictional 144 oversight. 187. The Report of Peru’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission addresses still another violation, which is the failure to report a detention to the competent authority, even though this was expressly stipulated in 145 Peru’s 1979 and 1993 Constitutions; it also singled out the special laws enacted to govern the counter146 subversive struggle. 142 IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Peru, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106, Doc. 59 rev., June 2, 2000, Chapter II, C. The Civilian Jurisdiction: the Anti-terrorist Legislation, paragraph 88. 143 Informe Final de la Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación de Perú, TOMO VI, Sección cuarta: los crímenes y violaciones de los derechos humanos, Capítulo 1: Patrones en la perpetración de los crímenes y de las violaciones de los derechos humanos, 1.6 La Violación del Debido Proceso, 1.6.1. ANÁLISIS DE LA LEGISLACIÓN RELATIVA A LA REPRESIÓN PENAL DEL TERRORISMO EN EL PERU [Final Report of Peru’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, VOLUME VI, Section four: crimes and human rights violations. Chapter 1: Patterns in the perpetuation of crimes and human rights violations, 1.6 Violation of Due Process, 1.6.1. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION ENACTED FOR SUPPRESSION OF THE CRIME OF TERRORISM IN PERU], p. 386. 144 Informe Final de la Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación de Perú, TOMO VI, Sección cuarta: los crímenes y violaciones de los derechos humanos, Capítulo 1: Patrones en la perpetración de los crímenes y de las violaciones de los derechos humanos, 1.6 La Violación del Debido Proceso, 1.6.1. ANÁLISIS DE LA LEGISLACIÓN RELATIVA A LA REPRESIÓN PENAL DEL TERRORISMO EN EL PERU [Final Report of Peru’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, VOLUME VI, Section four: crimes and human rights violations. Chapter 1: Patterns in the perpetuation of crimes and human rights violations, 1.6 Violation of Due Process, 1.6.1. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION ENACTED FOR SUPPRESSION OF THE CRIME OF TERRORISM IN PERU], p. 396. 145 Like the constitution that preceded it, the 1993 Constitution made it mandatory to inform a judge and the public prosecutor’s office when a person was detained (Article 2, paragraph 24, subparagraph f). 146 Legislative Decree 046, the first law enacted to combat the armed subversive movement, provided that preventive detention could last for no more than 15 calendar days and that the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Examining Judge were to be advised immediately and in writing, within 24 hours from the time of the detention or the time necessary given the distance. This formula was kept in successive anti-terrorist laws: Law 24700 (Article 2); Law 25031(Article 2); Decree-Law 25475 (Article 12, subparagraph c).