6 Convention, have been violated: First, they contend that his right to equality and non-discrimination has been violated because the legal description of terrorist crimes is disproportionate, as it includes acts that affect property but pose no threat to the lives and physical integrity of persons; this is also a violation of the basic principles of criminal law: proportionality and injury. The petitioners explain that the actions of which Víctor Ancalaf was accused, without any evidence to support the accusation, are part of a context of social protest at a project being developed on indigenous territory, “in which the behaviors are motivated by ends in no way related to subversion; their disvalue or illegality is on an entirely different plane from that of terrorist activity.” The petitioners are referring to the construction of the Ralco hydroelectric plant on Mapuche–Pehuenche territory. The petitioners also make the point that enforcement of the Anti-Terrorism Act to persons who are members of the Mapuche people is part of a recurring, discriminatory pattern of criminal persecution. 14 They explain that between 2001 and 2005 there was a pattern of unwarranted enforcement of the anti-terrorism legislation against Mapuche persons, which resulted in disproportionate sentences and proceedings in which due process guarantees were violated. Second, the petitioners in the Victor Ancalaf case explain that the courts have applied the anti-terrorism law without properly weighing and assessing the facts charged, which 15 constitutes a violation of the right to equal treatment. The State 19. The State did not submit observations on the merits on this point. It simply asserted and maintained that the trials were conducted by law, that the law under which the cases were prosecuted was the applicable law inasmuch as the facts of the cases fit into the broader context of social manifestations and acts of violence; that the cases were conducted in accordance with the State’s international obligations; or it simply denied the allegation made claiming that the petitioners were convicted because they are lonkos in their respective communities. C. The right of defense and the use of anonymous witnesses The petitioners 20. Petitioners Pascual Pichún and Aniceto Norín contend that the use of anonymous witnesses at trial constituted a violation of the American Convention. In effect, the Trial Court allowed the identity of two of the witnesses to be kept secret; during the first part of the proceeding right through to the initial verdict of acquittal; During the second phase of the case, from the time the original acquittal was vacated until they were finally convicted, the identity of the witnesses was revealed to the attorneys, who were expressly instructed not to reveal the witnesses’ identity to either defendant. Given these facts, petitioners Aniceto Norín and Pascual Pichún allege that the right to due process was violated, “as 16 our right to cross examine the prosecution’s witnesses was clearly abridged.” threatened by the discriminatory enforcement of the anti-terrorism law against members of the Mapuche people: “The other Mapuches join with don Victor Ancalaf Llaupe, the person directly affected by the indictment, prosecution and conviction for the supposed terrorist act, in signing the complaint because the anti-terrorism act has been repeatedly enforced against Mapuche persons, which poses a threat to every one of us.” Original petition that Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe, 69 authorities, leaders and members of the Mapuche people and three attorneys filed with the IACHR, received on May 20, 2005, p. 2. 14 In their words: “(…) The Executive Branch’s use of the Anti-Terrorism Act and its indiscriminate enforcement by the courts is not an isolated incident when it comes to Mapuche individuals and leaders. The Chilean State has frequently resorted to this to repress the Mapuches, which clearly constitutes discriminatory treatment of the Mapuches merely for being members of that ethnic group. This discriminatory treatment is apparent when compared with other conflicts or disputes that the country has had, as in the case of the protests by port workers and students, where heavy property damage was involved but where no one ever even suggested the possibility of applying such a disproportionate piece of legislation as the one described here to punish terrorist conduct.”. Original petition that Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe, 69 authorities, leaders and members of the Mapuche people and three lawyers filed with the IACHR, received on May 20, 2005, pp. 8-9. 15 “The principle of proportionality and consequently the right to equal protection and non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 1 and 24 of the American Convention was violated because the courts handed down a conviction for the alleged terrorism offense without proper appreciation and discernment regarding the legal nature and actual seriousness of the alleged act, by indiscriminately applying antiterrorist legislation.” Original petition that Victor Ancalaf, 69 authorities, leaders and members of the Mapuche people and three attorneys filed with the IACHR, received on May 20, 2005. 16 Original petition that Aniceto Norín Catrimán filed with the IACHR, received on August 15, 2003, pp. 7-8