29 VI PROVEN FACTS 73. Based on the facts described in the application, the documentary evidence, the statements of the witnesses, the reports of the expert witnesses, and the arguments of the Commission, the alleged victim’s representatives, and the State, the Court considers that the following facts are proven: Background and juridical context 73(1) From 1980 to 1994, Peru experienced serious social upheaval as a result of terrorist acts.29 73(2) Within the framework of the anti-terrorist legislation enacted in Peru, on May 5, 1992, Decree Law No. 25,475 entitled “Establishing the penalties for crimes of terrorism and the procedures for their investigation, pre-trial proceedings, and trial,” was promulgated. It defined crimes such as terrorism and collaboration with terrorism, and established procedural rules for investigating and trying these crimes.30 73(3) DINCOTE was the organ responsible for preventing, denouncing and combating terrorist activities; it prepared a document called a “police deposition,” which provided the grounds for trying crimes of terrorism.31 73(4) In accordance with Decree Law No. 25,475 promulgated on May 5, 1992, trials for crimes of terrorism were characterized, inter alia, by: the possibility of ordering the absolute incommunicado of those detained for the maximum time defined by law; the restriction of the defense lawyers’ participation until after the person detained had made a statement; the inadmissibility of parole for the defendant during the pre-trial proceedings; the prohibition to offer as a witness anyone who had intervened, because of his functions, in the preparation of the police deposition; the obligation of the Superior Prosecutor to formulate a charge “under his own responsibility”; the holding of the trial in private hearings; the inadmissibility of raising objections to any of the judges and judicial agents intervening in the trial; the 29 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers, supra note 27, para. 67(a); Case of Cantoral Benavides. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 63(t); Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al.. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 86(1); Case of Castillo Páez. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 42; Case of Loayza Tamayo. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 46(l); Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report No. 101/01, Cases Nos. 10,247 et al., paras. 160 to 171; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Peru, 1993, Document OEA/Ser.L/V/II.83. Doc. 31, March 12, 1993, para. 16; and final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, general conclusions (file on merits, reparations, and costs, tome II, appendix 2 to the brief presented by the alleged victim’s representatives on December 19, 2003). 30 Cf. Decree Law No. 25,475 (file with the State’s comments on the affidavits, appendix 10 of the brief with comments on the expert report made before notary public by Mario Pablo Rodríguez Hurtado, folios 975 to 980). 31 Cf. Decree Law No. 25,475 (file with the State’s comments on the affidavits, appendix 10 of the brief with comments on the expert report made before notary public by Mario Pablo Rodríguez Hurtado, folios 975 to 980).