15 The alleged victim was refused a pardon for the second time and she felt that her situation was being used as an example against the practice of medicine, “because, even in the absence of evidence, [she] had been convicted” and her “innocence was prejudged owing to her family connection, since [her] husband [had also been] detained once because it was considered that he had connections with terrorism.” In 2000, there was a change of Government, but the anti-terrorist legislation was maintained. As she had served a third of her sentence, she requested the benefit of parole, which was denied because “norms [were] applied to her case that had entered into force in 2003, subsequent to [her] detention.” The laws that would be applied during any new trial “continue to consider that providing medical care and attention can be defined as a terrorist act.” She stated that she condemned violence, whatever its origin “and although [she has] not treated anyone who has committed crimes of terrorism, at least not knowingly, [she] consider[s] that nowhere in the world could the provision of medical care be considered a crime and be punished.” Since 2000, when some flexibility was introduced into the prison regime, she has, on several occasions, requested exchanging her punishment for work within the prison and, thereby, exercising her profession and “recovering [her] self-respect and [her] expertise.” However, the prison’s legal adviser told her that she could not be given “the same work for which she [had been] sentenced, as her prison regime.” Following the report on the merits of her case issued by the Inter-American Commission in June 2003, her conviction was annulled de oficio, and the State undertook to resolve her case as soon as possible. However, one year later, the status of the case remained the same, without being resolved. She considers that the State has wanted to “destroy [her] professionally, because, from the start of [her] detention, [she] was denied medical literature, [her] professional equipment, and the possibility of practicing medicine in the prison.” As a result of her imprisonment for eight years and four months, her health has deteriorated; she has osteopenia, her vision has decreased, she has been affected emotionally, and she has not kept up with advances in her profession. She has tried to do some medical research in the prison and to offer talks to the prison population, but her attempts have been rejected several times. She is very frustrated professionally. Her children are distanced from her mother and herself, “owing to the financial situation which makes their education unsustainable,” and her siblings, who are not working, have not been able to continue contributing to their education. Her mother is 88 years of age, deaf and blind, and needs a cataract operation and permanent specialized care, which she cannot receive owing to the financial situation. The witness has always had the support of her colleagues at work, of the Medical Federation, of the Medical Association of the Peruvian Social Security Institute (hereinafter “the AMSSOP”) and the Physicians’ Professional