Concluding observations by individual members 330. Members of the Committee expressed appreciation of the State party's cooperation in submitting additional information and in complying with the Committee's requests for a supplementary report occasioned by the events that had taken place in Peru on 5 April 1992. While the representatives of the State party had made a commendable effort to respond to their queries, members regretted that their concerns had not been adequately addressed in the additional information that the Government had submitted, which left most of their questions unanswered. Members were not satisfied that their request for a supplementary report made at the Committee's forty-fourth session had been met adequately. As a result, members found it difficult to form a comprehensive view of the human rights situation in Peru during the period under review and, in particular, since 5 April 1992. 331. Members found little information in the report itself relating to the period prior to 5 April 1992 that was positive. Subsequent developments in respect of the implementation of the rights and freedoms protected under the Covenant had, under the Government of Emergency and Rational Reconstruction, also not been encouraging. In particular, members were deeply concerned about terrorism, which appeared to be part of the daily life in Peru and was an obstacle to the application of the Covenant. Members condemned not only the activities of terrorist groups but also the excessive force and violence used by the military, the security forces and paramilitary and civilian groups. Members considered that combating terrorism with arbitrary and excessive force could not be justified under any circumstances. 332. Another principal concern of members of the Committee related'to the constitutional justification of the changes in Peru brought about by the events of 5 April 1992. It appeared that the ensuing suppression of the Constitution and dissolution of Congress had rendered the state of law uncertain, left the legal system and judiciary in disarray and resulted in the de facto suspension of habeas corpus. The Committee had reason to believe that, subsequent to 5 April 1992, many of the rights contained in the Covenant, including non-derogable rights specified under article 4, paragraph 2, had been derogated from, 333. Members also expressed concern about the house arrest of politicians and did not find the reasons for such detentions convincing. Women who had not been found guilty of an offence had been detained, together with their children. Those detentions could not be considered compatible with the rights guaranteed under the Covenant. Members expressed regret that no response had been received regarding follow-up action taken pursuant to the views adopted by the Committee under the Optional Protocol with regard to Peru, namely, communications Nos. 202 (1986) and 203 (1986), despite the request by its Special Rapporteur and repeated queries raised during the dialogue. Noting the intention of the Government of Peru to restore democracy and law and order, members of the Committee considered that, even during the current transitional period, the Government had to pay due attention to the implementation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Covenant. In the event that the emergency circumstances warranted any derogations from such rights, they were to be strictly confined to the limitations specified under article 4 of the Covenant, and other States parties should be duly notified. -79-