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