63 in that the State allegedly paid witnesses to testify against them on the pretext that it was protection money, which meant that the procedural treatment the defendants received was different from what other, non-Mapuche defendants prosecuted under criminal law would receive; or (v) the failure to recognize the right of petitioners Juan Patricio Marileo et al. to equal protection because the oral criminal trial court applied different criteria in deciding what evidence and exculpatory evidence it would hear, which was especially detrimental to Patricia Troncoso, José Benicio Huenchunao and Juan Ciriaco Millacheo. 228. Taking into account the conclusions formulated in previous sections, which are more general with respect to the cases prosecuted against the victims, the Commission does not deem it necessary to comment on this group of allegations, either because the Commission does not have sufficient information to arrive at a conclusion or because they are covered by the conclusions already formulated. 229. Before embarking upon its analysis, the Commission is reminded that in their antiterrorism strategies, States must be careful to respect the right to due process, the right to a fair trial and the right to judicial protection recognized in articles 8, 9 and 25 of the American Convention, all of which 216 are nonderogable rights; as the IACHR has previously explained, “[w]here member states endeavor to investigate, prosecute and punish individuals for crimes relating to terrorism, the Commission stipulates that member states remain bound by fundamental and non-derogable due process and fair trial protections in all instances, whether in times of peace, states of emergency or armed conflict. These protections encompass 217 fundamental principles of criminal law as well as entrenched procedural and substantive safeguards. ” In any criminal proceeding conducted against them, persons accused of terrorism-related crimes must have all 218 the legal guarantees that constitute due process. 2. The convictions in light of the principle of individual criminal responsibility and the presumption of innocence 230. One of the most fundamental principles of criminal law that informs the very guarantees 219 of the right to due process and the right to a fair trial is the principle of individual criminal responsibility. 220 This general principle, which is a basic precept that the main international courts and the States’ 221 domestic criminal laws recognize, holds that no one may be convicted of a crime except on the basis of his/her individual responsibility; it implies that no one can be held criminally responsible for acts of third parties or for belonging to a certain group or organization. The corollary of this principle is the prohibition against collective criminal responsibility, a rule that holds that “Punishment shall not be extended to any person other than the criminal” (Art. 5 of the American Convention). 231. As noted earlier, the Inter-American Commission has stressed that the principle of legality is one of the basic procedural guarantees that States must respect in the anti-terrorist campaigns 216 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has singled out the non-derogable rights within the inter-American system, which include, inter alia, the rule of law and the principle of legality and, therefore the judicial guarantees essential to protect rights that are not subject to suspension during states of emergency. I/A Court H.R., Advisory Opinion OC-8/87, paragraphs 21-27. IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Peru (2000), paragraphs 71-73; IAHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/SER.L/V/II.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1, corr., October 22, 2002, paragraph 52, and Executive Summary, paragraph 24. 217 IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/SER.L/V/II.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1, corr., October 22, 2002, Executive Summary, paragraph 16. 218 IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/SER.L/V/II.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1, corr., October 22, 2002, paragraph 220. 219 IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/SER.L/V/II.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1, corr., October 22, 2002, paragraph 222. 220 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 25; Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Article 7; Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Article 6. 221 IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/SER.L/V/II.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1, corr., October 22, 2002, paragraph 222.