15 19, 1998, in the petition for habeas corpus filed by Carlos Alfredo Villalba Zapata (supra 23)25. 58. The Commission did not contest the document presented by the State, nor was its authenticity doubted, so that it is appropriate to rule that it should be incorporated into the pool of evidence in the case. TESTIMONY 59. The declarations of the witnesses, Benítez Rivas and Catacora Santisteban, were not contested during the proceedings and, accordingly, the Court added them to the pool of evidence in the case. In continuation, the Court summarizes these declarations. a. Testimony of Heriberto Benítez Rivas, Chairman of the Human Rights Committee of the Bar Association of Lima Heriberto Benítez is a lawyer by profession and Chairman of the Human Rights Committee of the Bar Association of Lima. As is the case of almost all the Bar Associations in Peru, the organization to which he belongs is familiar with the Cesti Hurtado case. The Committee he chairs issued an opinion in which it asserted that, as habeas corpus had not been respected, Gustavo Cesti Hurtado was arbitrarily detained. This opinion was elevated to the Board of Directors of the Bar Association of Lima, the highest authority of the Association, which approved it unanimously, so that it constituted an institutional opinion, which all lawyers were obliged to accept. The witness declared that the Executive Commission on Human Rights of the Bar Association of Lima had communicated with the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru, with the Office of the Public Defender and with human rights organizations concerned by the situation of Gustavo Cesti Hurtado. It has also addressed the Supreme Council of Military Justice, requesting it to comply with the habeas corpus, but it has never obtained an answer. It had also resorted to the following international organizations seeking support to ensure compliance with the writ of habeas corpus: United Nations agencies; Amnesty International; the International Union of Lawyers; the European Parliament; the Human Rights Committee of the Mexican Chamber of Deputies; other Bar Associations, such as those of Guatemala and Puerto Rico; and organizations such as CODEHUCA, Americas Watch, Washington Law, Washington Office, etc. The witness declared that the Bar Association had found it “extremely difficult…, to communicate personally [with Gustavo Cesti Hurtado] in order to get a real feeling of what he has been suffering”. He mentioned that he had not been allowed to enter the Simón Bolívar Barracks, where Gustavo Cesti Hurtado was imprisoned. The witness was only able to speak with him for 10 to 15 minutes on one occasion, after which it was not possible to speak with him again. 25. Cfr. authenticated copy of the judgment pronounced by the Jurisdictional Plenary of the Constitutional Court of Peru on June 19, 1998 in proceeding No. 585-96-HC/TC.