46 to left-wing political parties of Peru and the organization Shining Path. The aforementioned report further indicated that the financial and economic information about Peru stored in the hard disk of the alleged victim’s personal computer constituted evidence of the alleged relation between Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas and Shining Path. In addition, the Police Report accused Héctor Aponte-Sinarahua, among others, of having committed the crime of terrorism, homicide, theft, and document forgery. Moreover, the aforementioned report indicated that the authorities competent to hear the case were the Forty-Sixth Provincial Criminal Public Prosecutor’s Office of Lima (Cuadragésima Sexta Fiscalía Provincial Penal de Lima) and the Forty-Sixth Criminal Magistrate’s Court of Lima (Cuadragésimo Sexto Juzgado de Instrucción de Lima). Regarding the first proceedings brought against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas 97(77) On August 9, 1991, the Special Provincial Public Prosecutor’s Office for Terrorism of Lima (Fiscalía Especial de Terrorismo de Lima) filed a complaint against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas et al. for the crime of terrorism and theft against the State et al. 97(78) On August 9, 1991, the Forty-Sixth Magistrate’s Court of Lima (Cuadragésimo Sexto Juzgado de Instrucción de Lima) ordered that criminal investigation be commenced against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, Isabel Cristina Moreno-Tarazona, Héctor Aponte-Sinarahua, and other three individuals who had not yet been arrested, including the alleged leader of the organization Shining Path, Manuel Rubén Abimael Guzmán-Reinoso, for the “crime of terrorism and property theft to the detriment of the State [et al.].” In that judicial order, an arrest warrant against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas was issued. To that date, Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas had been held in custody at police premises for fourteen days. 97(79) On December 26, 1991 and February 15, 1992, Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas requested the Forty-Sixth Magistrate’s Court of Lima (Cuadragésimo Sexto Juzgado de Instrucción de Lima) that he be released on bail, pursuant to the provisions of Article 201 of the Criminal Procedural Code then in force, on the grounds of his innocence and the fact that the charges against him were not based on sufficient legal grounds as they had been brought on the basis of assumptions. 97(80) On January 17, 1992, the Forty-Third Magistrate’s Court of Lima (Cuadragésimo Tercer Juzgado de Instrucción de Lima) assumed jurisdiction over the case. 97(81) On June 17, 1992, the Forty-Third Magistrate’s Court of Lima (Cuadragésimo Tercer Juzgado de Instrucción de Lima) held that the commission of the crime of terrorism had been proven, as well as the criminal liability of Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas et al. 97(82) On January 22, 1993, the Public Prosecutor’s Office brought criminal charges against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas et al. “as perpetrator[s] of the crime of [t]errorism against the State [et al., and proposed] to the Criminal Chamber that a sentence of thirty years’ imprisonment be [imposed thereon] […].” Furthermore, the Public Prosecutor’s Office held that the merits of the case were not sufficient to commence