6 proceeding, without giving the possibility to Ms. De La Cruz, or her defense attorney, to cross-examine the witnesses, with the exception of the confrontation with Aroni Apcho, the due process violation committed by the Court in the first proceeding extended to the current proceeding; viii. on September 8, 2006 the Segunda Sala Penal Transitoria de la Corte Suprema (Second Provisional Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court) declared the criminal proceeding related to the first detention of Ms. De La Cruz Flores null and void, and found that the criminal action was barred by the statute of limitations. Said decision “was not only unnecessary, but also contrary to the spirit of the decision rendered by the Tribunal Constitucional (Peruvian Constitutional Court) in January 2003, which held that convicted persons, whose due process rights had been violated as a result of the application of the anti-terrorist legislation, should be compensated by granting them the possibility of a new proceeding which ensures, at a minimum, the right to a fair trial. Clearly, this form of reparation does not apply to those who were acquitted or to those whose cases were dismissed, as was the case of María Teresa de la Cruz.” A different interpretation would entail a violation of the principle ne bis in idem and of the right to humane treatment as a result of the additional suffering caused by “fear of further persecution” on the part of the State. Therefore, the State has once more violated the right not to be prosecuted twice for the same offense. b) in regards to the obligation of the State to pay the amounts specified in the Judgment as compensation for pecuniary and non pecuniary damage and costs and expenses: i. the State has complied with the obligation to pay the compensation awarded to Ms. De La Cruz Flores and her next of kin; ii. on December 28, 2005, 18 days after the expiration of the oneyear term, the State paid the compensation for pecuniary and non pecuniary damage to Ms. De La Cruz Flores and the members of her family; iii. in regards to the minor, Danilo Blanco De La Cruz, son of Ms. De La Cruz Flores, the State deposited USD30,000 into a trust fund in the Banco de la Nación (National Bank), which ended on May 2006, when the child reached the age of majority, and iv. on December 28, 2005, 18 days after the expiration of the oneyear term, the State reimbursed the costs and expenses to Ms. De la Cruz Flores. c) in regards to the duty to provide medical and psychological care to the victim through the State’s health services, including the provision of free medication: i. the State has failed to adopt the necessary measures for Ms. De La Cruz Flores to receive medical and psychological care, and