41 3. Analysis of articles 1, 2 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 135. As observed in the section on proven facts, Chile’s anti-terrorism legislation is Law 18,314, as amended by 1991 Law 19,027 and 2002 Law 19,806. 136. This body of laws resorts to the technique of classifying as terrorist crimes, certain behaviors that are already criminalized in the Criminal Code –such as homicide, felonious assault, kidnapping, abduction of minors, arson- and simply adds certain subjective elements to the description to make it a terrorist offense. These subjective elements are as follows: a) the purpose of the crime is to instill fear among the population or a portion thereof, that one will fall victim to these kinds of crimes, either because of the nature and effects of the means employed or because they are part of a premeditated plan to attack a certain category or group of persons, or b) the purpose is to pressure the authorities into a certain decision or to make demands of them. 137. As for the first subjective element, the Commission observes that a terrorist crime can be established based on “the nature and effects of the means employed or because it is part of a premeditated plan to attack a certain category of group of persons.” Article 1 of the Anti-Terrorism Act does not explain what nature or effect of the means employed has the effect of transforming a common crime into a terrorist crime. Thus, the distinction between a common crime and a terrorist offense is up to the discretion of the judge in each specific case. 138. This broad language is not corrected by the second paragraph of Article 1(1) of the AntiTerrorism Act, which mentions certain means that imply intent to instill fear. The purpose of that second paragraph is not to establish an exhaustive list of those means that transform a common crime into a terrorist offense, but rather to describe some of the means that lead to a presumption. The Commission considerer that the provision on “the nature of the means and their effects”, opens up a vague and imprecise range of behaviors that can be classified as terrorism, without the persons being able to know, to a certainty, when his/her conduct falls under the legal description of the common crime, and when it comes under the description of the crime of terrorism. As will be described in detail below, the vagueness of this provision allowed the introduction of elements, such as the ethnic origin of the accused, their position as leaders and/or their link to the Mapuche indigenous people, as well as a generalized representation of the claims of said indigenous people, without a distinction made between the context of social demands and protest, and the sporadic acts of violence that have arisen in that context. 139. The same conclusion applies with respect to the provision under which the conduct is deemed to be part of a “premeditated plan” to attack “a certain category or group of persons.” The Commission observes that nowhere in Article 1(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Law does one find a definition of what constitutes a “premeditated plan.” The article does not explain what type of pre-determination or planning is necessary or the groups or categories of persons to which it refers. This ambiguity led, in the case of Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Patricia Roxana Troncoso acts of differing gravity. The Committee is of the opinion that the definition in question should be reviewed by the Egyptian authorities and stated much more precisely especially in view of the fact that it enlarges the number of offences which are punishable with the death penalty”.) 164 Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Estonia, Doc. UN CCPR/CO/77/EST (April 15, 2003), paragraph 8 (“The Committee is concerned that the relatively broad definition of the crime of terrorism and of membership of a terrorist group under the State party’s Criminal Code may have adverse consequences for the protection of rights under article 15 of the Covenant, a provision which significantly is non-derogable under article 4, paragraph 2. The State party is requested to ensure that counter-terrorism measures, whether taken in connection with Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) or otherwise, are in full conformity with the Covenant”.) 165 Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: New Zealand, Doc. UN CCPR/CO/75/NZL (August 7, 2002), paragraph 11 (“The State party is requested to ensure that the definition of terrorism does not lead to abuse and is in conformity with the Covenant”).