66 b) Regarding the preventive detention of Wilson García-Asto as from the annulment of the first proceedings against him 117. On January 15, 2003 the Criminal Chamber of the High Court of Lima (Sala Penal de la Corte Superior de Lima) declared the nullity of the criminal proceedings instituted in the ordinary jurisdiction before “faceless” judges against Wilson GarcíaAsto (supra para. 97(30)). As a consequence of the annulment of the first proceedings against him, on March 10, 2003, the First Special Criminal Court for Terrorism (Primer Juzgado Especializado Penal en Delito de Terrorismo) issued an order for pre-trial proceedings to commence before the ordinary courts against him for the crime of membership in and affiliation with a terrorist organization, as defined in Article 5 of Decree-Law No. 25.475, and issued an arrest warrant against Wilson García-Asto based on the police report attached by the Prosecutor (supra paras. 97(32) and 97(34), stating that, pursuant to Article 135 of the Criminal Procedural Code, there were sufficient evidentiary elements of the alleged commission of the crime charged. 118. As to the provisional detention of Wilson García-Asto, the Court considers that the Peruvian Constitution of 1993, in force when the new proceedings against the alleged victim were commenced, in Article 2, subparagraph (24)(b), regarding personal liberty and safety, states that: b) No forms of restrictions to personal liberty are allowed, except for the cases established by the law. […] 119. On the other hand, the Criminal Procedural Code of Peru, applicable during the detention of the alleged victim in the new proceedings instituted against him, in Article 135 as amended by Law No. 27.226 published on December 17, 1999, sets forth the requirements necessary for a judge to issue the arrest warrant: a) that there is sufficient evidence involving the defendant as perpetrator or abettor of a crime; b) that the penalty to be imposed exceed four years, and c) that there are evidentiary elements to conclude that the defendant intends to escape justice or thwart the evidentiary procedures. Furthermore, said provision states that the penalty set forth by the law does not constitute a valid criterion to establish the intention to escape justice. Finally, said Article states that the change of the arrest warrant shall proceed whenever “new investigation acts challenge the sufficiency of the evidence which gave rise to that measure.” 120. For its part, Article 137 of the Criminal Procedural Code, as amended by Law No. 27.553, published on November 13, 2001, sets forth that the term of detention shall be no longer than “nine months in ordinary proceedings and eighteen months in special proceedings, provided that the requirements stated in Article 135 of the Criminal Procedural Code are fulfilled. In the case of crimes […] of […] terrorism […], the term of detention shall be doubled,” thus amounting to a total of 36 months. Furthermore, said rule sets forth that upon expiration of the above mentioned term, “without a first-instance judgment having been passed, the immediate release of the defendant shall be granted.” 121. With respect to release on bail, Article 182 of the Criminal Procedural Code sets forth that the defendant who is held in custody may request so whenever “new elements added to the record of the proceedings allow reasonably foreseeing that:” 1. the prison term imposed shall not exceed four years, or that the defendant has been