and characteristics of criminal responsibility of juveniles, Law 20.084 of 2007, has already been enacted by the Chilean State. Under this law, the Chilean State can criminally prosecute and punish children 14 to 18 years of age, in a manner that is consistent with international standards: avoiding deprivation of liberty, ensuring due process, and making sure that punishments are aimed at social reintegration of juveniles. Instituting criminal proceedings against indigenous children and adolescents under the procedure set forth in Law 18.314, which significantly restricts the scope of the minimum guarantees which constitute due process, is difficult to reconcile with these internationally recognized principles, as explained in the merits report of the instant case. The principle of the best interests of the child must be the guiding light for acts of Chilean public officials, including officers of the police, judges, prosecutors and public defenders. In fact, one of the pillars of any juvenile criminal justice system is to protect the best interests of the child. This principle, in the opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, “is based on the very dignity of the human being, on the characteristics of children themselves, and on the need to foster their development, making full use of their potential, as well as on the nature and scope of the 4 Convention on the Rights of the Child.” The scope of this international principle has been defined by the Committee on the Rights of the Child as follows: “In all decisions taken within the context of the administration of juvenile justice, the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration. Children differ from adults in their physical and psychological development, and their emotional and educational needs. Such differences constitute the basis for the lesser culpability of children in conflict with the law. These and other differences are the reasons for a separate juvenile 5 justice system and require a different treatment for children.” The principle of protection of the bests interests of the child permeates the criminal justice system; thus, the Committee on the Rights of the Child has explained that “the protection of the best interests of the child means, for instance, that the traditional objectives of criminal justice, such as repression/retribution, must give way to 6 rehabilitation and restorative justice objectives in dealing with child offenders.” As for indigenous children and adolescents, the principle of protection of the best interests of the child has an even more specific nature. In fact, the Committee on the Rights of the Child has noted “the application of the principle of the best interests of the child to indigenous children requires particular attention. The Committee notes that the best interests of the child is conceived as both a collective and an individual right, and that the application of this right to indigenous children as a group requires consideration of how the right relates to collective cultural rights. (…) When State authorities, including legislative bodies, seek to assess the best interests of an indigenous child, they should consider the cultural rights of the indigenous child and his or her need to exercise such rights 7 collectively with members of their group.” Application of Chile’s anti-terrorist law to an indigenous child or adolescent is incompatible with the principle of protection of the best interests of the child. Another key principle established by the Convention on the Rights of the Child is the promotion by states of non-judicial intervention as the first response to juveniles in conflict with the law. The general policy of juvenile justice is that States are bound under the Convention on the Rights of the Child to provide special attention to the prevention of juvenile delinquency, the introduction of alternative measures allowing for responses to juvenile delinquency without resorting to judicial 8 procedures. The Committee on the Rights of the Child has noted that “according to article 40 (3) of CRC, the States parties shall seek to promote measures for dealing with children alleged as, 4 Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/2002, August 28, 2002, par. 56. 5 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child: General Comment No. 10 (2007) Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice. UN Document CRC/C/GC/10, April 25, 2007, par 10. 6 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child: General Comment No. 10 (2007) – The Rights of the child in juvenile justice. UN Document CRC/C/GC/10, April 25, 2007, par. 10. 7 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child: General Comment No. 11 (2009) – Indigenous Children and their Rights under the Convention. UN Document CRC/C/GC/11, February 12, 2009, pars 30-31. 8 UN Committee on the Rights of the child: General Comment No. 10 (2007) – The Rights of the child in juvenile justice. UN Document CRC/C/GC/10, April 25, 2007, par. 4.