8 The State 24. The State responds that witness protection rules set forth in the provisions of Law 18,314 and the Code of Criminal Procedure are intended to protect those witnesses’ right to life and to their physical integrity. It asserts that witnesses have the same rights protected by the American Convention – i.e., the right to life, the right to humane treatment, and the right to equal protection under law-, and that “the premise of the petitioners’ assertion is that the guarantees of the accused in this case are more important than the rights of the witnesses and of the victims of these crimes, or of any human being for 22 that matter. This in itself is a violation of Article 29 of the Convention.” The State further contends that the accused’s right of defense was respected, despite the fact that the identity of some witnesses was kept confidential: “The right protected under Article 8(2)(f) of the Convention is the right of the defense to examine the witnesses present in the courtroom, a guarantee that the defense fully exercised when its defense attorneys cross-examined the witnesses in question. The State asserts that the protected witnesses did not give testimony with their faces covered. The two protected witnesses testified behind a screen facing the judges, who were able to observe their gestures and expressions, and thus gauge 23 the veracity of their testimony, and ask the witnesses for any clarifications they might have required.” The State further contends that it is untrue that their testimony was a key factor in the court’s decision to convict, as that decision was based on a body of various pieces of evidence of different kinds: testimony, 24 experts, documents and material evidence. D. Double jeopardy in the cases against Mapuche indigenous people The petitioners 25. Petitioner Aniceto Norín alleges that the decision of the Chilean Supreme Court to vacate the original verdict of acquittal is a violation of Article 8(4) of the American Convention on Human Rights, which upholds the double jeopardy rule or principle of non bis in idem “because after being unanimously acquitted in a non-appealable judgment by the Angol Oral Criminal Trial Court, the State seeks to retry 25 him for the same cause.” He explains that Article 8(4) of the Convention means that the State cannot disregard the effects of a final verdict of acquittal and that in his view, the verdict of the Angol Oral Criminal Trial Court was final and not subject to review, although it was challenged by the prosecutor and private accusers in a motion seeking to have the decision vacated on the pretext that a domestic court cannot declare a verdict final, because violations of international treaties might be at stake. 26. Petitioner Norín reasons that the double jeopardy rule upheld in Article 8(4) of the American Convention and in Article 14(7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was violated because, in his opinion, the principle of non bis in idem recognized therein must be interpreted witnesses against him when they testified, thus leaving the defense at an obvious procedural disadvantage. This problem was compounded by the use of anonymous witnesses. As observed in the complaint, the supposed participation of Víctor Ancalaf in the unlawful act of which he was accused was based entirely on testimony given in confidential files by witnesses whose faces could not be seen, resulting in testimony that had little truth to it; the defense knew nothing of the testimony for months. (…) The trial against Ancalaf was not public. Much of the summary proceeding was completely confidential, including for the defense attorneys. While the other court proceedings, once the secret summary proceedings were over, were public, they were open only to the parties.” The petitioners’ additional observations in the case of Víctor Ancalaf on the merits of the case, August 9, 2007, received at the Commission on August 24, 2007. 22 23 Response from the Chilean State to Petition P-619-03, received by the IACHR on November 30, 2004, pp. 12-14. Response from the Chilean State to Petition P-619-03, received by the IACHR on November 30, 2004, pp. 12-14. 24 The State contends that “the contribution that the protected witnesses made to the decision in the case was quite marginal. An analysis of the decision would suggest that the testimony of the two protected witnesses did not prove the fact that they were called to testify about: i.e., the accused’ participation in the burning of the Nancahue property. Thus, the court did not give substantial weight to their testimony, as the petitioner would have one believe. This is also apparent from consideranda 14 of the decision, i.e., that the statements made by the witnesses were not proof of the terrorist threats, the crime of which the petitioners were ultimately convicted.” Response from the Chilean State to Petition P-619-03, received by the IACHR on November 30, 2004, pp. 12-14. 25 Original petition that Aniceto Norín Catrimán filed with the IACHR, received on August 15, 2003.