53 (supra para. 97(109)). The alleged victim’s legal counsel stated that there was new evidence, such as witness testimonies, to prove that the arrest of the alleged victim was fully unjustified.111 The First Special Court (Primer Juzgado Especializado) granted the aforementioned request and, once the new evidentiary items had been filed regarding the motion, the proceedings were submitted to the National Chamber for Terrorism (Sala Nacional de Terrorismo).112 97(112) On September 16, 2004, the Twenty-Sixth Special Criminal Court of Lima (Vigésimo Sexto Juzgado Especializado en lo Penal de Lima) dismissed the writ of habeas corpus filed by Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas’ legal counsel on September 3, 2004, (supra para. 97(110)) as it considered, inter alia, that: pursuant to the first transitory provision of Legislative Decree No. 926, the detention time limit as set forth in Article 137 of the Criminal Procedural Code is calculated as from the date of issuance of the annulment order [,…] pursuant to the aforementioned Annulment Order [,] to date [,] only sixteen months and two days have elapsed, no excess regarding the arrest or infringement of the rules of due process having been incurred by the Judge […].113 97(113) On November 2, 2004, the Second Special Superior Prosecutor’s Office for Terrorism (Segunda Fiscalía Superior Especializada en Delitos de Terrorismo) brought charges against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, Isabel Cristina Moreno-Tarazona, Arturo Guzmán-Alarcón or Héctor Aponte-Sinarahua and Manuel Rubén Abimael GuzmánReinoso “for having committed a crime against Public Peace –Terrorism- to the detriment of the State” and requested that twenty-five years’ imprisonment be imposed upon Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, in accordance with Article 320 (1), (2), and (4) and Article 322 of the Criminal Code of 1991, in force as of the date of occurrence of the events attributed to the alleged victim. Furthermore, the Superior Prosecutor’s Office held that the charges brought against the defendants, contained in Article 320 (5) and (6) of the Criminal Code, had not been proven. Moreover, it also stated that no individual should be considered injured, as the only injured party for the crimes under analysis in the instant case is the State, wherefore, the case should be closed in that regard as well.114 97(114) On November 19, 2004, the National Criminal Chamber (Sala Penal Nacional) confirmed the order appealed on September 1, 2004, of the First Special Criminal Court for Terrorism (Primer Juzgado Penal Especializado en Delito de Terrorismo) 111 Cf. Motion for appeal filed by Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas’ legal counsel with the Judge in charge of the First Special Criminal Court for Terrorism (Primer Juzgado Penal Especial en Delito de Terrorismo) on September 13, 2004 (case file of appendixes to the brief of requests and arguments, volume 1, pages 1890 to 1892). 112 Cf. Order of the First Special Criminal Court for Terrorism (Primer Juzgado Penal Especializado para Delitos de Terrorismo) issued on September 13, 2004 (case file of appendixes to the brief of requests and arguments, volume 1, appendix 26, page 1894). 113 Cf. Order issued by the Twenty-Sixth Special Criminal Court of Lima (Vigésimo Sexto Juzgado Especializado en lo Penal de Lima) on September 16, 2004 (case file of appendixes to the brief of requests and arguments, volume 1, appendix 27, pages 1900 to 1907). 114 Cf. Report No. 225-2004-2 FSEDT-MP-FN issued by the Second Special Superior Prosecutor’s Office for Terrorism (Segunda Fiscalía Superior Especializada en Delitos de Terrorismo) on File No. 69-03 of November 02, 2004 (case file of evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case submitted by the State, volume 6, pages 5687 to 5721).