12. Furthermore, with regard to the guarantee of a natural judge and the use of the military jurisdiction to try civilians, the Constitutional Court considered that Article 4 of Decree Law No. 25.659 concerning treason was unconstitutional and emphasized the enactment “of Law No. 26.671 [which] tacitly annulled, both Article 15 [of Decree Law No. 25.475] and all those provisions that, connectedly, prevented the accused from knowing the identity of those who intervene in his trial.” 8 Upon adopting this decision, this Constitutional Tribunal made express reference to that provided by the InterAmerican Court in this case. 9 13. Moreover, regarding the impossibility of filing an action of amparo to safeguard personal liberty, or to contest the legality or the arbitrariness of the victims’ detention (Article 6 of Decree Law No. 25.659), and heading to other specific topics on the right to defense, the Court notes that Article 6 of Decree Law No. 25.659 was amended by Decree Law No. 26.248, approved on November 25, 1993, permitting, in principle, the filing of applications for amparo in favor of those accused of crimes of terrorism or treason. 10 Regarding the impossibility of appointing a lawyer until testimony is taken, established in Article 12, subparagraph (f), of Decree Law No. 25.475, the Court refers to the judgment of the Constitutional Court which considered that “that this contested provision could not be declared unconstitutional, because it had been tacitly derogated by Article 2 of Law No. 26.447.” 11 14. In addition, the judgment on the merits in this case deliberated on the detention conditions for serving the sentence, in application of Article 20 of Decree Law No. 25.475, which allowed the victims to be kept in a very small cell, without ventilation or natural light, with half an hour of sun each day, with continuous isolation in their cells, and with an extremely restricted visiting regime.12 In this regard, the judgment of the Peruvian Constitutional Court established that said article established an unreasonable and disproportionate measure, constituting cruel and inhumane treatment, which violated the Peruvian Constitution and the American Convention.13 15. Furthermore, the Court stresses that that which was expressed in the judgment in this case regarding the prohibition to recuse the judges, was followed up on in the Constitutional Court’s judgment in the paragraph where it declared that “by establishing an absolute prohibition to recuse the judges and auxiliaries of justice intervening in a same reasons, the clause ‘against the security of (...) any other goods or service’ must be interpreted in the sense that it refers only to goods and services that possess specific penal protection in the different types of crimes against public security, established in Title XII of the Second Tome of the Penal Code.” Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of Peru, supra note 5, paras. 72 and 73. 8 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of Peru, supra note 5, paras. 109 to 111. 9 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of Peru, supra note 5, paras. 98 to 109. 10 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of Peru, supra note 5, para. 90. 11 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of Peru, supra note 5, para. 123. 12 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. V. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, paras. 197 and 198. 13 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of Peru, supra note 5, para. 223. Furthermore, the Court underscores that, as part of the judgment in the case of Lori Berenson, it acknowledged as a proved fact that, “on January 18, 2001, Supreme Decree No. 003-2001-JUS was issued [which] indicated as rights of the ‘inmate’: to receive direct visit from family members and friends at the indicated times for up to eight hours a day; to meet and communicate in private with her defense counsel for up to six hours a day; to carry out any permitted activity in her cell, passageways or in the yard, at the times established for this, and to carry out individual or group activities ‘compatible with the environment’ of the establishment where she is.” Case of Lori Berenson Mejía V. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 88.6. 5