42 Robles, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán, and Juan Ciríaco Millacheo Licán, to the consideration of certain facts connected with the fire as indicating a definition of roles, in order to take the view that a degree of premeditation existed, without it being possible to differentiate this conduct from an offense aggravated by premeditation. Furthermore, the imprecision as to the persons who were targeted by the act resulted in those who are on the lands claimed by the Mapuche people being considered a "category" or a "certain group of persons" because they have property titles to the land or because they work there. 140. As for the second subjective element, i.e., the purpose to “pressure the authorities into a certain decision or to make demands of them,” the Commission notes first that because of the way in which the law is formulated, this intent can stand on its own as a subjective factor that transforms a common crime into a terrorist offense, irrespective of the means used or their effects. Thus, this subjective element can cover a multiplicity of hypotheticals that are not necessarily associated with terrorist violence per se. Similarly, it is difficult to separate the formulation of Article 1(2) of the AntiTerrorism Act from the description of other crimes that come under the heading of extortion or other crimes aggravated because they are committed for extortive purposes. 141. The Commission also notes that Article 2, subparagraphs 1 and 4, of the Anti-Terrorism 166 Law provides for the possibility that offenses committed against property can be regarded as terrorist acts, without drawing a clear distinction between such offenses and those that could imperil a person’s life or physical safety. Here, the international consensus is that the disavowal of terrorist violence and the obligation to prevent, suppress and eradicate it, are premised on the conviction that such violence is mainly an attack upon human life. By classifying crimes against property as terrorist offenses, Chile’s Anti-Terrorism Act is ambiguous and creates confusion as to the behavior that the State criminalizes as a terrorist offense. 142. The observations that the Commission has made thus far apply also to the “attempt” to commit a terrorist offense, established in Article 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, inasmuch as the “attempt to commit a terrorist offense” is based on the definitions set forth in articles 1 and 2 of that law. Specifically, the criteria for determining whether a threat can be regarded as a terrorist offense under Article 7 of Law 18,314 are so broad that in the case of Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán and Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, the Angol oral criminal trial court took into consideration the fact that they were members of and leaders (lonkos) of the “Mapuche ethnic group.” 143. The Commission believes that the elements described above are sufficient to conclude that the language of the descriptions of the terrorist offenses criminalized under articles 1, 2 and 7 of Law 18,314 is ambiguous and imprecise, and the conduct criminalized under those provisions cannot be unmistakably distinguished from other offenses criminalized under common criminal law. 144. The Commission notes that in its Fifth Periodic Report on Chile, dated April 2007, the Human Rights Committee wrote that “[t]he Committee is concerned about the definition of terrorism 167 contained in the Counter-Terrorism Act No. 18.314, which may be excessively broad.” In the Committee’s words: (…) 7. The Committee is concerned about the definition of terrorism contained in the Counter-Terrorism Act No. 18.314, which may be excessively broad. It is also concerned that this definition has allowed charges of terrorism to be brought against members of the Mapuche community in connection with protests or demands for protection of their land rights. (…) The State party should adopt a narrower definition of crimes of terrorism, so as to ensure that it is not applied 166 For example, the crime of arson or havoc is mentioned, without specifying what the risk to life or safety might be. Reference is also made to placing, launching or firing bombs or explosive or incendiary devices of any kind that affect or can affect a person’s physical safety or cause damage. 167 UN - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Human Rights Committee – Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 40 of the Covenant. Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee. Chile. Doc Ccpr/C/Chl/Co/5 – April 17, 2007.