10 emotional areas, the methods used, and the violence deployed, which means that an expert examination must be conducted to determine Mr. Luis Galindo’s psychological, emotional, and mental state. The State notes that the petitioner submitted no evidence during the processing of the case by the Commission, other than his own narrative, indicating in any way that Mr. Galindo Cárdenas suffered psychological torture. Consequently, the State contends that a presumption against it that Mr. Galindo was in fact tortured cannot be established. 52. Regarding the petitioner’s alleged incommunicado detention, the State maintains that as can be seen in the petitioner’s claims, Mr. Galindo received visits while in custody – specifically, by his wife and sister, by the Public Prosecution Service, and by members of the International Red Cross. It states that it has not expressly denied that the petitioner might have been kept incommunicado at the start of his arrest since that restriction was in line with the rules for police investigations in force at the time of the alleged victim’s arrest. In this regard, the 4 State notes that Article 12.d of Decree Law No. 25475 allowed for detainees to be held incommunicado temporarily for reasons of security and confidentiality in the investigation. It states that the subsection in question was later ruled unconstitutional in a judgment of the Constitutional Court of January 3, 2003 (case file No. 0102002-AI/TC). 53. Regarding the alleged violation of the petitioner’s right to a fair trial, the State notes that contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, under Article 200 of the 1993 Constitution: “The exercise of habeas corpus and amparo actions is not suspended during the states of emergency referred to in Article 137 of the Constitution.” The State indicates that in states of emergency the only constitutional rights that may be restricted or suspended are those dealing with personal freedom and security, the inviolability of homes, and freedom of assembly and circulation set forth in sections 9, 11 and 12 of Article 2 and in section 24.f of that article, but that this does not apply to habeas corpus remedies. The State contends that Mr. Galindo could clearly have filed for amparo relief but did not do so. 54. Regarding the complaint that Mr. Galindo lodged with the prosecutor’s office, the State claims that the Internal Oversight Office’s resolution of May 8, 1998, in case file No. 525-95 indicates that Mr. Galindo’s complaint was archived in accordance with Amnesty Laws Nos. 26479 and 26492, which suspended any complaint or judicial proceedings against public officials for the commission of acts related to the antiterrorism effort. The State holds that since the legal effects of these laws were overturned by the Inter-American Court’s judgment in the Barrios Altos case, there are currently no material or procedural impediments to an investigation being carried out into the alleged violation of the alleged victim’s rights during his arrest. 55. The State notes that the petitioner filed no criminal complaints against the military, police, or political authorities purportedly involved in the criminal acts he describes, or any challenge to the senior prosecutor’s resolution that approved the application of the Repentance Law to him. The State contends that the petitioner has merely held that in the circumstances surrounding the violations committed against him, the judiciary did not offer the necessary legal guarantees for ending those abridgments of his rights. Regarding the alleged violation of the right to judicial protection, the State notes that the petitioner filed for no remedies, in spite of being both an attorney and a magistrate. 56. Regarding the alleged violation of the principle of legality, the State contends that when Mr. Galindo expressed his commitment to repentance, the judiciary applied Article 1.2.a of Decree Law No. 25499 of 4 The State indicates that pursuant to Article 12 of this Law: "Investigation rules. In investigating terrorism crimes, the National Police of Peru shall strictly abide by the applicable legal provisions and, specifically, the following: (…) d. When the circumstances and the complexity of the investigations so require, in order to cast additional light on the facts under investigation, the detainee may be ordered to be placed in incommunicado detention for up to the maximum period allowed by law, with the knowledge of the Public Prosecution Service and of the corresponding judicial authority.”