4 On August 27, 2007, the IACHR sent the State the petitioners’ observations on the merits and gave it two months in which to submit its own observations. As of the date of the adoption of this report, the State has not submitted observations on the merits. The IACHR received communications from the petitioners on February 19 and September 5, 2008, and duly forwarded them to the State. The Commission received communications from the State on February 14 and 27 and July 7, 2008, which it then forwarded to the petitioners. 11. At the State’s express request, the Commission decided that in this report, it would deliver a combined decision on the merits of all three petitions. III. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS A. On the classification and interpretation of terrorist offenses under Chilean law The petitioners 12. Petitioners Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Juan Ciríaco Millacheo Licán contend that as formulated, Law 18,314 violates the principle of legality and the presumption of innocence. In the first case, the petitioners explain that “the crimes that it [the law] establishes as the predicate offenses of terrorism are broader than those commonly found internationally. Specifically, in Chile, the crime of intentionally setting fire to a forest or wooded area – a fire that may do no harm or pose any threat to a community - is classified as a terrorist offense.”6 They also contend that, as set forth in Law 18,314, the legal presumption of a terrorist intent for cases in which incendiary means are used is a violation of the 7 principle of legality by virtue of the fact that “the crime constituting terrorism is not described,” and a violation of the principle of presumption of innocence by virtue of the “presumption of criminal culpability.”8 13. Other petitioners add that it is not only the law as written that violates the principle of legality, but the manner in which it is applied. Specifically, they argue that the principle of legality was violated to their detriment because the classification of their conduct as terrorism was contrary to the facts, inasmuch as their conduct did not qualify as such; hence, the application and penalties of Law 18,314 were not justified. 14. The petitioners in the case of Víctor Ancalaf also allege violation of the principle of legality, because Ancalaf was convicted of a crime whose distinctive characteristics are not clearly established, thus giving the judge an excessive margin of appreciation in applying criminal law. Petitioners Pascual Pichún and Aniceto Norín argue that their conviction on September 27, 2003, violated the principle of legality because they were convicted of being the perpetrators of “terrorist 9 threats.“ 6 Observations of Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Juan Ciríaco Millacheo Licán on the merits of the matter before the IACHR, received on August 9, 2007, p. 8. 7 Observations of Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Juan Ciríaco Millacheo Licán on the merits of the matter before the IACHR, received on August 9, 2007, p. 7. 8 Observations of Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Juan Ciríaco Millacheo Licán on the merits of the matter before the IACHR, received on August 9, 2007, p. 7. 9 In their view, there is no such crime under the Chilean legal system, since Article 7, subparagraph 2 of Law 18,314 provides that “the penalty for a serious and credible threat to commit any of these crimes shall be same as the penalty for an attempt to commit these crimes;” and subparagraph 1 provides that “an attempt to commit any of the terrorist crimes contemplated in this law shall constitute a punishable offense…”; thus they point out that “terrorist threat” is not criminalized under Law 18,314; what that law criminalizes is a serious and credible threat of terrorist arson or terrorist homicide. They also point out that neither Aniceto Norín nor Pascual Pichún was charged with the crime of “terrorist threats;” the crime with which Norín was charged in the indictment was a “threat of terrorist attack.”