9 (c) “Lida,” identified as the wife of Roberto PICO PACO – AT LARGE. 46. Peru indicates that this report states that “the applicant with code A1JO54967 agrees to assume the legal defense of the criminal terrorist Juan SANTAMARIA RAMOS (c) ‘Mirko,’ at the request of members of his family, who paid his professional fees,” and that the same report states that in early August 1993, “(…) the aforesaid applicant assumed the defense of the criminal terrorist Eduard Elí NACIÓN RAMOS (c) ‘Beto,’ under investigation by JECOTE-PNC-HUANUCO for terrorism crimes, at the request of the families of the subversives Noemí HUACCHA SÁNCHES (c) ‘Yersi,’ Roberto PILCO PACO (c) ‘Guillermo,’ and (c) Lida, who coerced him and threatened to kill him and his family if he did not agree to defend them.” 47. The State notes that in the Public Prosecutor’s Office’s resolutions dated November 4 and 9, 1994, the First Provincial Prosecutor of Huánuco and the Senior Prosecutor, respectively, established that the Repentance Law was applicable in that the applicant had come forward voluntarily and, consequently, they ordered that the case be archived. 48. The State contends that the Shining Path terrorist organization constituted an entire criminal apparatus, within which there was a popular assistance office with an area – known as the “democratic lawyers” – responsible for defending those terrorists who were captured. The State holds that given the prevailing circumstances, it was reasonable to assume that Mr. Galindo had ties to the Shining Path terrorist group, since he was able to identify around six of its members, with their names and aliases. Peru states that while the option of defending terrorists existed, in the case at hand there were reasonable indications of the existence of ties between 3 Mr. Galindo and the “democratic lawyers.” 49. At the merits stage, the State presented additional information on a Verification Report (No. 009DECOTE-PNC-HCO) of January 25, 1995, in which a person identified by means of a code voluntarily applied for application of the Repentance Law, stating that in Acomayo in the year 1990, when he was working in his store, he was confronted by a Shining Path incursion that, amid threats, appointed him the military commander of the first sector of San Pedro de Acomayo. According to the report, this person gave important information revealing the preparation and circumstances of the terrorist actions in which he participated. The State claims that this confession was made by Mr. Galindo, who again on that date applied for the benefits of the Repentance Law. 50. Regarding the alleged violation of the right to personal liberty, the State indicates that Mr. Galindo applied for the Repentance Law, as recorded in the National Police reports of October 31, 1994, and January 25, 1995, and in the prosecutors’ resolutions of November 4, and 9, 1994. Consequently, the State contends that there was no violation of Mr. Galindo’s right to personal liberty; instead, a formal procedure provided for in law for the granting of a requested benefit was followed. Regarding the contradictions identified by the petitioner, the State notes that “the statements of then-President Alberto Fujimori to the press and the armed forces communiqué on Mr. Galindo’s arrest have no legal force or any effect on the proceedings, being merely informative in nature; they may therefore be inexact and subject to rectifications or modifications.” The State notes that in Peru, official records of arrests and applications for the Repentance Law are based on police interventions and the proceedings of the Public Prosecution Service. It holds that there is no contradiction between the petitioner voluntarily reporting to the police and subsequently being arrested, in that it reflects the logical sequence of events. It contends that after coming forward and admitting his ties to the Shining Path terrorist organization, pursuant to the terms of Decree Law No. 25475, the specialized police unit was required to open the corresponding investigation, which led to the petitioner’s arrest. 51. Regarding the alleged violation of the right to humane treatment, the State claims that the facts described by the petitioner cannot be deemed acts of torture, since there are no single parameters for determining the post-traumatic effects of psychological torture. It notes that psychological torture bears a close relationship with the individual’s past, the structure of his personality, his most vulnerable psychological and 3 See: Minutes of Hearing No.19, Case 11.568, Luis Galindo Cárdenas, 133rd period of sessions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.