70 13, 2005 by the National Chamber for Terrorism (Sala Nacional de Terrorismo), which stated that the case was to be remitted to the corresponding Criminal Court “so that it proceed[ed] pursuant to law” (supra para. 97(90)). However, from the evidence of the instant case it results that it was only on June 24, 2003 that the First Special Criminal Court for Terrorism (Primer Juzgado Penal Especializado en Delitos de Terrorismo) took up the case against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas (supra para. 97(91)). 138. The Commission and the representatives claimed that the preventive detention of Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas turned into an arbitrary detention as it was not based on sufficient legal grounds so that said restrictive measure could remain in effect (supra paras. 98 and 99). 139. The Court shall analyze whether the judicial authorities, in light of the provisions of the Convention, gave sufficient legal grounds to sustain the need to keep the alleged victim in custody. In this regard, the Court notes that the arrest warrant that the Peruvian courts took into account upon analyzing the motion filed by the defendant so that his detention be replaced with his commitment to appear before the court as required, was ordered by the Forty-Sixth Magistrate’s Court of Lima (Cuadragésimo Sexto Juzgado de Instrucción de Lima), on August 9, 1991 (supra paras. 97(78) and 97(89)). 140. On September 1, 2004, the First Special Criminal Court for Terrorism (Primer Juzgado Penal Especializado en Delito de Terrorismo) declared the motion submitted by Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas’ counsel on July 13, 2004 so that his detention be replaced by his commitment to appear before the court to be inadmissible (supra para. 97(109)). Upon analyzing the case, the Judge of the First Criminal Court (Primer Juzgado Penal) considered that the Judge of the Sixty-Sixth Magistrate’s Court of Lima (Cuadragésimo Sexto Juzgado de Instrucción de Lima) had issued an arrest warrant against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas according to the requirements set forth in Article 135 of the Criminal Procedural Code, that is, as there was sufficient evidence to involve the defendant as perpetrator or abettor in the commission of the crime, the sanction to be imposed exceeded the term of four years’ imprisonment, and “given the seriousness of the facts, it w[as] foreseeable that the defendant w[ould] try to escape justice, thus thwarting the evidentiary procedures.” 141. The First Special Criminal Court for Terrorism Especializado en Delito de Terrorismo) declared that (Primer Juzgado Penal from the analysis of the proceedings to date, it is not concluded that there are new acts which render the situation of the petitioner invalid in such a way that he deserves a change of the coercion measure; furthermore, as there is truthfulness in the facts claimed - as it derives from the police investigation stated in the police report-, and considering the seriousness of the facts, the arrest warrant is in conformity with the Law, reason for which the personal coercion measure has to continue […] 142. On November 19, 2004, the National Chamber for Terrorism (Sala Nacional de Terrorismo), upon deciding upon the motion of appeal regarding the decision dated September 1, 2004 rendered by the First Special Criminal Court for Terrorism (Primer Juzgado Penal Especializado en Delito de Terrorismo) (supra para. 97(114)), confirmed said decision reiterating that “there w[ere] no elements that w[ould] challenge the