2 were then in force(1). The Commission submitted this case for a ruling on whether the following articles of the Convention were violated: 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection), all these in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention for the alleged "unlawful deprivation of liberty, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, violation of the judicial guarantees, and double jeopardy to María Elena Loayza-Tamayo for the same cause, in violation of the Convention," and of Article 51(2) of the Convention for refusing "to comply with the recommendations formulated by the Commission." It also asked the Court to declare that Peru "must pay full compensation to María Elena Loayza-Tamayo for the grave damage material and moral- she has suffered and, consequently, [to] instruct the Peruvian State to order her immediate release and make her appropriate reparation" and to pay the costs incurred in processing the Case. II 2. The Court is competent to hear the instant Case. Peru ratified the Convention on July 28, 1978, and recognized the jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. III 3. The facts set out in the application are summarized in the following paragraphs: a. On February 6, 1993, Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, a Peruvian citizen and a professor at the Universidad San Martín de Porres, was arrested together with a relative, Mr. Ladislao Alberto Huamán-Loayza, by officers of the National CounterTerrorism Bureau (hereinafter "DINCOTE") of the Peruvian National Police Force, at a property on Mitobamba Street, Block D, Lot 18, Los Naranjos Estate, Los Olivos District, Lima, Peru. Under the Ley de Arrepentimiento (Repentance Law) enacted through Decree-Law No. 25.499, Angélica Torres-García, alias "Mirtha," captured on February 5, 1993, denounced Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo. The application also indicates that the Peruvian State, failing to observe the verification procedure required by that law and its regulations, arrested Ms. Loayza-Tamayo the following day without an arrest warrant issued by the competent judicial authority, as an alleged collaborator of the subversive group "Shining Path". b. Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo was detained by DINCOTE from February 6 to 26, 1993, and was not taken before the Special Naval Court, in violation of Article 12(c) of Decree-Law Nº 25.475 (crime of terrorism). She was held incommunicado in the DINCOTE offices for ten days and subjected to torture, cruel and degrading treatment and unlawful pressure, for example, "torture, ... threats of drowning on the beach at night and rape to [which] she was subjected by members of DINCOTE," in an effort to force her to incriminate herself and admit that she was a member of the Peruvian Communist Party -Shining Path- (hereinafter "PCP-SL"). However, Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo claimed that she was innocent, denied membership in the PCP-SL, and, in fact, "criticized its methods: the violence and the human rights violations committed by that subversive group." c. During the ten days in which she was held incommunicado, Ms. LoayzaTamayo was allowed no contact with her family or attorney, nor were they informed of her arrest. Her family learned of her arrest through an anonymous telephone call (1) Rules of Procedure approved by the Court at its XXIII Regular Session, held from January 9 to 18, 1991, amended on January 25, 1993, and July 16, 1993.

Select target paragraph3