23 72. Based on the evidence introduced, the Court ruled that the following facts had been established: (a) that “terrorist fires” had happened at the Nancahue and San Gregorio properties, set by third parties; and (b) that threats had been made against the owners and managers of the two properties. The Court’s analysis of these events as terrorist acts was as follows: …background information that, taken together and after being duly examined, leads these judges to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the events recounted in the indictment and described, respectively, as a house fire at the Nancahue tree farm, a forest fire at the San Gregorio tree farm, and the threats made against the owners and managers of those properties, do qualify as terrorist offenses, inasmuch as the actions that underlie these crimes demonstrate that the form, methods and strategies employed had a malicious intent, which was to instill a generalized fear in the area, a situation that is a public and notorious fact that these judges cannot ignore; this is a serious conflict between a portion of the Mapuche ethnic group and the rest of the population, a fact neither argued by the parties nor unknown to them. In effect, the crimes herein specified must be viewed against the backdrop of a process of recovering Mapuche lands, in which the perpetrators took direct action, without respecting the legal and institutional order and by recourse to the use of force through measures that were planned, agreed and prepared in advance by radicalized groups that seek to create a climate of insecurity, instability and fear in various sectors of Regions VIII and IX. These measures can be summarized as follows: excessive demands that violent groups make of owners and landholders, warning them of the various consequences they will face if they do not give in to the demands. Many of these threats have materialized in the form of felonious assaults, robberies, theft, arson, vandalism and usurpation, which have affected both the persons and property of various farmers and tree farmers in this part of the country; in the oral proceedings the court heard numerous pieces of testimony and learned some of the background to this situation, even though that information is public knowledge. The obvious inference is that the objective is to instill in the population a well-founded fear of falling victim to similar crimes, and thereby force the owners to cease any further exploitation of their properties and ultimately to force them to abandon their properties, as the sense of insecurity and uneasiness that these attacks cause have consequences, such as driving off the workforce or increasing the cost of labor, increasing the costs of renting farming equipment and the cost of insuring the properties, the buildings and the crops. It is becoming more and more common to see workers, machinery, vehicles and work set up on the various properties under police protection, to 87 ensure that the work can get done. All this affects constitutionally protected rights. 73. The Court then held that the authorship of these acts had not been demonstrated, and therefore held that Aniceto Norín and Pascual Pichún could not be held criminally responsible. 74. The Court’s analysis meant that Aniceto Norín and Pascual Pichún –and Patricia Troncoso as well- were cleared of any criminal responsibility by the oral criminal trial court, which also ordered the Public Prosecutors Office and the private accusers to pay costs, dismissed the civil suit and 88 ordered costs there as well. Having been acquitted, the two Lonkos were released after spending one 89 year and three months in preventive detention. 5. The motion filed with the Supreme Court to have the lower court ruling vacated and the verdict of acquittal overturned. 87 Verdict of the Angol oral criminal trial court, April 14, 2003, Consideranda 10. Attached to the original petitions that Aniceto Norín and Pascual Pichún filed with the IACHR, received on August 15, 2003. 88 Verdict of the Angol oral criminal trial court, April 14, 2003, operative part. Attached to the original petitions that Aniceto Norín and Pascual Pichún filed with the IACHR, received on August 15, 2003. 89 Original petition that Aniceto Norín Catrimán filed with the IACHR, received on August 15, 2003, p. 9. Original petition that Pascual Pichún Paillalao filed with the IACHR, received on August 15, 2003, p. 5. Not contested by the State.