2 3. In the petitions and in the observations on the merits, the petitioners assert that by prosecuting and convicting them of crimes classified as terrorist offences, the State violated their right to equality, the principle of legality, various procedural guarantees, freedom of expression, the right to personal liberty, and the right to participate in government, in relation to the State’s duty to respect and protect the human rights recognized in the Convention and to adapt its domestic laws to be in compliance with its international human rights obligations. 4. The State did not submit observations on the merits of any of the three cases in question. 5. Having made the respective analysis as to facts and law, the Commission concluded that Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, José Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Lican, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, and Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe were tried and convicted under legal provisions that suffer from ambiguity and imprecision incompatible with the principle of legality. Precisely as a result of the application of open-ended criminal classifications, the offenses with which they were charged were classed as terrorist crimes on account of the ethnic origin of the victims and their status as Lonkos, leaders of, or activists for the Mapuche indigenous people. The Chilean judicial authorities that convicted the victims for terrorist crimes based their decision on a representation of a situation known as the “Mapuche conflict,” without making distinctions between the broader context of that indigenous people’s legitimate claims characterized by various forms of social protest, and the acts of violence committed by certain minority groups in that context. Accordingly, the invocation of the victims’ membership and/or link to the Mapuche indigenous people constituted an act of racial discrimination by which the social protests of members of the Mapuche indigenous people were, at least in part, criminalized. One of the most striking aspects of the case sub examine is that it concerns the criminal prosecution and conviction of the highest traditional authorities and leaders of three Mapuche indigenous communities, under Chile’s anti-terrorism law and under circumstances antithetical to human rights. Pascual Pichún and Aniceto Norín are Lonkos, in other words, the highest-ranking leaders or heads of their respective communities; Víctor Ancalaf is a Werkén, i.e., his community’s messenger or envoy. Together, the Werken and the Lonkos comprise the local Mapuche indigenous leadership and as such are critical nodes in this indigenous people’s socio cultural structure. Proper performance of their roles within Mapuche culture and social organization is a factor that helps to preserve the socio cultural integrity of the Mapuche people and ensures the transmission of its social and cultural values and norms from one generation to the next; therefore, to in any way obstruct or prevent these authorities from discharging their functions adversely affects Mapuche social structure and cultural integrity. 6. In consequence, the Commission concludes that the Chilean State violated the rights recognized in articles 8(1), 8(2), 8(2)(f), 8(2)(h), 9, 13, 23 and 24 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations set forth in articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of the persons named in the present report, and a resulting impact on the socio cultural integrity of the Mapuche people as a whole. II. PROCESSING WITH THE COMMISSION 7. On October 21, 2006, April 23, 2007 and May 2, 2007, respectively, the Inter-American Commission approved Admissibility Reports No. 89/06, concerning Petition No. 619-03 (Aniceto Norín Catrimán and Pascual Pichún Paillalao); No. 32/07, concerning Petition No. 429/05 (Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia et al.), and No. 33/07, concerning Petition No. 581-05 (Victor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe). These admissibility reports were forwarded to the State and to the petitioners on November 15, 2006, May 9, 2007 and May 10, 2007, respectively. The Commission also placed itself at the parties’ disposal with a view to arriving at a friendly settlement. It gave the petitioners two months in which to submit their additional observations on the merits, a period that would begin as of the date on which the respective admissibility reports were transmitted. 8. In the case of Aniceto Norín Catrimán and Pascual Pichún Paillalao (Report No. 89/06):