6 describing the form of collaboration with terrorists allegedly committed by Mr. Galindo. In this regard, he states that the formal and unrestricted provision of legal advice does not constitute an act of collaboration (Article 284 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch). 28. The petitioner notes that this resolution was upheld by the senior prosecutor, and so he was released on November 16, 1994, but that he was not given a written deed for his arrest, which had gone on longer than the maximum of 15 days allowed for a person to be held in a terrorism investigation. The petitioner indicates that on December 13, 1995, Mr. Galindo Cárdenas asked the prosecutor of the first criminal Prosecutor’s Office of Huánuco, Dr. Ricardo Robles Coz, for certified copies of the investigation that was brought against him, but no reply was given to his request. He states that on December 16, 1994, Mr. Galindo Cárdenas filed a complaint remedy with the senior criminal prosecutor of Huánuco, again without positive results. The petitioner claims that he apprised of the prosecutorial resolutions after a lengthy time spent investigating and demanding they be handed over in order to be able to initiate the corresponding legal actions. 29. The petitioner reports that Mr. Galindo’s family did not pursue legal action while he was being held in custody, since they received threats from the Peruvian Army that were they to do so, he would not be released. In addition, he claims that a state of emergency had been declared in the city of Huánuco and it was therefore under the control of the Political/Military Command, led by Army Colonel Eduardo Negrón Montestruque, the perpetrator of the alleged violations; consequently, the city’s prosecutors and judiciary were subordinate to the Political/Military Command, and so any such remedies would have been ineffective. He also contends that under Article 38 of Law 23506, and in accordance with Article 137.1 of the Constitution, habeas corpus actions were not admissible in areas covered by states of emergency, which rendered the pursuit of any legal action or claim futile. 30. The petitioner alleges that upon regaining his freedom, Mr. Galindo Cárdenas lodged a complaint against the Provincial Prosecutor of Huánuco, Ricardo Robles y Coz, and against the Senior Prosecutor of Huánuco, Carlos Schult Vela, for the crimes of abuse of authority, against the jurisdictional function and malfeasance in office as a consequence of his arbitrary detention. However, he states, in a decision dated May 8, 1998, the Internal Oversight office of the Public Prosecution Service ordered the closing of the complaint file, in application of Article 4 of Amnesty Law No. 26479. 31. The petitioner also reports that Mr. Galindo filed a complaint with the Executive Council of the Judicial Branch, which in a decision of January 16, 1995, resolved to demand from the army a comprehensive investigation of the case and the punishment of those responsible and to dispatch an official letter to the Attorney General of the Nation and to the Ministry of the Interior to the same end. He alleges that despite that decision, the State has not fulfilled its obligation of conducting a timely and effective investigation. He further alleges that he had made various approaches to the Human Rights Commission of the Democratic Constituent Congress, to the office of the Attorney General of the Nation, and to the Ministry of Defense, all of which were fruitless. 32. The petitioner states that at the time when Mr. Galindo was publicly identified as a repentant terrorist, in violation of the antiterrorist legislation (Regulations to the Repentance Law), his physical and personal integrity was placed in danger, he suffered humiliation in various public venues, and his professional work as an attorney was impaired. He also contends that this situation caused severe pain and suffering to the alleged victim and his family, particularly his wife and his son who, at the time of the incident, was 9 years of age. The petitioner claims that as a consequence of the State’s stigmatization of him as a subversive criminal, his professional relationships were blocked; he was therefore forced to sell his house, his car, his wife’s business, to change his son to another school, and to provide him with psychological treatment. 33. Regarding the new facts presented by the State at the merits stage – dealing with the Verification Report of January 25, 1995, which indicates that a tradesman applied for the terms of the Repentance Law in connection with incidents that took place in the town of Acomayo in 1990, when members of PC-SL held a People’s Assembly and appointed him the military commander of the first sector of San Pedro Acomayo – the petitioner