CAT/C/21/D/110/1998
page 3

The Peruvian authorities accused her of the offence of disturbing public order
(terrorism against the State) and being a member of the subversive movement
Sendero Luminoso. The main evidence in support of these accusations was
testimony by two persons under the repentance legislation (a legal device for
the benefit of persons who are involved in acts of terrorism and who provide
useful information to the authorities) in which they stated that they
recognized the author in a photograph, as well as the police reports stating
that subversive propaganda had been found in the place where the witnesses say
the author carried out the acts of which she was accused. According to the
author, the witnesses did not meet the requirements for being regarded as
competent witnesses in accordance with the State party's procedural
legislation because they were co-defendants in the proceedings against her.
She also pointed out that her sister had been arrested in 1992, tried for her
alleged involvement in subversive acts and kept in prison for four years until
an appeal court declared her innocent.
2.3
The author denied the charges, although she admitted that she belonged
to the lawful organization “United Left Movement” and to lawful community
organizations such as the “Glass of Milk Committees” and the “Popular
Libraries Committees”. She said she had worked as an instructor in literacy
campaigns for low-income groups in Peru. She also said she fled her country
as a result of well-founded fears that her freedom and physical integrity were
in danger, when she learned in the press that she was being accused of
terrorism; she recognized that she used legal identity documents belonging to
her sister to enter and stay in Venezuela. She also said she had not applied
for political asylum in the State party, where she was working as a teacher,
because she did not know the law and was afraid because she was undocumented.
2.4
If the Supreme Court of Justice authorized the extradition, it would
take place within a few hours under an Executive order by which the
Supreme Court would notify the Ministry of Justice, which would in turn notify
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which would establish contact with the
Government of Peru to make arrangements for the person's return to Peru.
2.5
In an earlier communication, the author informed the Committee that the
Supreme Court had agreed to extradition in a decision published
on 16 June 1998. It was subject to the following conditions: (a) that the
author should not be liable to life imprisonment or the death penalty;
(b) that she should not be liable to more than 30 years' imprisonment; and
(c) that she should not be liable to detention incommunicado, isolation,
torture or any other procedure that would cause physical or mental suffering
while she was on trial or serving her sentence. The author's counsel filed an
application for constitutional amparo which was declared inadmissible by the
Supreme Court. Extradition took place on 3 July 1998.
2.6
The author also informed the Committee that, on 24 March 1998,
she formally submitted her application for asylum in writing and that,
on 12 June 1998, her counsel formally requested that the Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees should regard her as a candidate
for refugee status.

Select target paragraph3