40. The domestic court accorded fundamental significance to evidence that was unrelated to the acts that were being prosecuted in these criminal proceedings, but rather concerned other acts that, furthermore, were not even attributed to the accused. In addition, it did not mention whether criminal convictions had been handed down in relation to those acts. In our opinion, this evidence created a prejudgment as regards the terrorist intent and, based on the analysis made by the court in the judgment, it was decisive in the ruling that the act was a terrorist offense. The criminal court used expressions such as a “well-known and notorious” or it is “public knowledge” in order to found its reasoning. The use of the said expressions relates to more general reflections affirming that violent acts and crimes had been committed in the region where the criminal act was perpetrated in relation to the Mapuche claims. The undersigned consider that the domestic court used the said expressions as a substantial argument to establish that the members of the Mapuche community who were claiming ancestral lands were necessarily violent or that they had a greater propensity to commit offenses than the rest of the population. C) The criminal judgment convicting Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe 41. In the criminal judgment that convicted Víctor Ancalaf as perpetrator of the offense established in article 2.4 of Law 18,314, the Court of Appeal included considerations on the fact that the acts occurred in the context of resistance to the construction of the hydroelectric plant, and the “Pehuenche conflict” 59 in order to classify the offense attributed to Víctor Ancalaf as a terrorist offense, without referring to other more precise evidence concerning the conduct of the accused. Thus, instead of considering setting fire to a truck an ordinary offense, it was deemed to be a terrorist offense, since it was analyzed in the context of considerations regarding opposition to the construction of a hydroelectric plant by members of indigenous communities.60 This revealed a certain prejudgment in relation to the actions taken by the indigenous peoples to resist the construction of a hydroelectric plant. 59 According to the Report of the Commission on the Historical Truth and New Deal for the Indigenous Peoples, “at one point of the long [historical] process, the ancestral Pehuenche communities were part of a larger social community: the Mapuche People.” This was “the result of the development of the different peoples and cultures that, for thousands of years, peopled the actual territory of Chile.” Cf. Report of the Historical Truth and New Deal Commission, First part. Historia de los Pueblos Indígenas de Chile y su relación con el Estado, IV. Pueblo Mapuche, Capítulo Primero: Los mapuche en la historia y el presente, page 424, footnote 3 (file of annexes to the final written arguments of the State of Chile, folio 62, link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/27374.pdf) 60 The fifteenth considerandum of the judgment delivered on December 30, 2003, by the investigating judge of the Concepción Court of Appeal, when analyzing the terrorist intent (subjective element of the definition) of the offense established in article 2.4 of Law No 18,314, in relation to article 1 of that law, included the following reasoning: FIFTEENTH: That the facts described in the preceding considerandum constitute the terrorist offense established in article 2.4 of Law No 18,314, in relation to article 1 of that law. This is because they reveal that actions were taken in order to instill in some of the population a justified fear of falling victim to such crimes, bearing in mind the circumstances, and also the nature and effects of the means employed, as well as the evidence that they were the result of a premeditated plan to attack the property of third parties engaged in work relating to the construction of the Ralco Power Plant of Alto Bío Bío, all with the purpose of forcing the authorities to take decisions that would prevent the construction of this plant. In second instance, the Concepción Court of Appeal, in its judgment delivered on June 4, 2004, considered that the subjective element of the terrorist offense had been proved, based on the following considerations: 19. That the evidence relating to the first, seventh and thirteenth conclusions of the first instance ruling constitute judicial presumptions that, carefully assessed, prove that the trucks and the backhoe were set on fire in the context of the Pehuenche conflict, in Region 8, province of Bío Bío, Santa Bárbara commune, in the sector of the cordillera known as Alto Bío Bío, which is related to the opposition to the construction of the Ralco Hydroelectric Plant, and where, also, it is well-known that the sisters, Berta and Nicolasa Quintremán Calpán are 16