2
offenses. This was made taking into account the ethnicity of the victims and their position of
Lonkos, leaders or activists between the indigenous Mapuche people. The Chilean judicial
authorities which convicted the victims for terrorist crimes based their sentence on a context
referred to as the "Mapuche conflict" without making distinctions between the more general
context of legitimate claims of indigenous people characterized by various forms of social
protest, and acts of violence that have been filed by certain minority groups in this context in
particular. Thus, the invocation of the victims’ membership of and / or the connection with the
indigenous Mapuche was an act of discrimination that aimed to criminalize, at least in part, the
social protest of members of the indigenous Mapuche people. These events affected the social
structure and cultural integrity of the people as a whole.
The Chilean State ratified the American Convention on Human Rights and accepted the
contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court on August 21, 1980.
The Inter-American Commission appointed Commissioner Dinah Shelton and IACHR
Executive Secretary Santiago A. Canton as its delegates. Moreover, Elizabeth Abi-Mershed,
Assistant Executive Secretary; Silvia Serrano Guzmán; María Claudia Pulido; and Federico
Guzmán Duque acted as legal advisers.
Pursuant to Article 35 of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court, the
Commission attaches a copy of merits report 176/10, prepared in accordance with Article 50 of
the Convention, as well as a copy of the entire case file before the IACHR (Appendix I), and the
annexes used to prepare report 176/10 (Annexes). This merits report was furnished to the
Chilean State in a communication dated December 7, 2010, granting it a period of two months
to report on its compliance with the recommendations. In view of the State’s request for an
extension in order to furnish this information, the IACHR granted a one-month extension,
through April 1, 2011, on which date the State submitted a report in which it presented
information on some of the recommendations and challenged specific conclusions of report
176/10. On April 7, 2011, the IACHR received a new request for extension from the State, which
was granted for a period of four months. In the IACHR’s letter granting the extension, the
Chilean State was asked to present a new report on compliance with the recommendations by
July 7, 2011. Said report was received on the requested date. On August 5, 2011, the State
submitted a new report, in which it essentially reiterated the position set forth in its report of July
7, 2011.
The Commission hereby submits the present case to the jurisdiction of the InterAmerican Court based on the need to obtain justice for the victims owing to noncompliance with
the recommendations on the part of the Chilean State.
With respect to the recommendation “to vacate the terrorism-related sentences
imposed on the victims,” the State noted that most of the victims were not incarcerated “thus
vacating the effects of the sentences imposed.” Furthermore, the State made reference to a
series of benefits that resulted from these sentences, in view of the reforms introduced to Law
No. 18,314. In that regard, the Commission considers that it is the
responsibility of the State to provide sua sponte the necessary measures to vacate the effects of
the sentences imposed in violation of the principles of legality, nondiscrimination, and due
process guarantees. The State referred only to Article 18 of Law No. 20,467, offering neither an
explanation as to how this rule applied to the facts in this case nor the measures it was to adopt
in this regard to vacate the effects of the sentences. Moreover, the Commission considers that

Select target paragraph3