2002, in the Upper Bío-Bío sector of the Eighth Region. Mr. Ancalaf was also sentenced to the additional penalties of perpetual and absolute disqualification for public duties and offices and political rights and absolute disqualification for degreed professions for the term of the sentence, and to pay the costs of the case. According to the petitioners, pursuant to Article 9 of the Political Constitution of Chile, 5 Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe was disqualified for a period of 15 years from carrying out teaching duties; from operating a social communications medium or being the director or administrator thereof; or from performing therein functions related to the airing or dissemination of opinions or information; or from acting as the leader of political organizations or those related to education or neighborhood, professional, corporate, union, student, or association related matters in general. According to the petitioners, the above sentence was appealed on January 3, 2004. 12. On June 4, 2004, a higher court ruling was issued. The petitioners state that the sentence modified the lower court ruling in the sense that Mr. Ancalaf’s participation in the events of September 29, 2001 and March 3, 2002 were not held to have been proven, sentencing Mr. Ancalaf to five years and one day and additional penalties, as the perpetrator of a terrorist offense based on the events of March 17, 2002. 13. The petitioners state that Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe’s defense later filed an appeal seeking a reversal of the conviction in the lower court [recurso de casación], based on errors of law, and at the same time they submitted a complaint appeal seeking invalidation of the conviction due to error or serious abuse in the decision handing down the conviction. According to the petitioners, the appeal for reversal was declared inadmissible on August 2, 2004 and the complaint appeal was handled and rejected on November 22, 2004 because in the view of the Court there was no error or serious abuse on the part of the sentencing judges. 14. The petitioners argue that there was in this case a violation of the principle of proportionality and harmlessness that should underlie a democratic criminal system, amounting to a violation of the right or principle of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 1 and 24 of the Convention. They argue that the law punishing terrorist offenses in Chile, Law 18.314 of May 17, 1984, includes among the types of conduct classified as terrorist acts “placing, throwing, or igniting bombs or explosive or incendiary devices of any kind that affect or could affect personal safety or cause harm.” 6 According to the petitioners, this typical description, relating to mere effects on property, completely exceeds the proper proportionality that should exist between the seriousness of the act, the definition of the offense, and the punishment given to the crime. The goal of producing fear among the general population shall be presumed, unless there is indication to the contrary, based on the fact that the offense was committed through the use of explosive or incendiary devices, weapons with great destructive power, toxic, corrosive or infectious agents, or other agents that could cause great havoc, or by mailing letters, packages or the like with explosive or toxic effects. 2a The offense is committed to wrest decisions from authority or to impose demands. Article 2: The following shall constitute terrorist offenses when they satisfy any of the characteristics indicated in the previous article: No. 4: Placing, tossing, or shooting bombs or explosive or incendiary devices of any type that affect or could affect personal safety or cause harm. 5 Political Constitution of Chile states at Article 9: Terrorism, in any of its forms, is essentially contrary to human rights. A qualified quorum law shall define terrorist acts and the punishment for them. Those responsible for these offenses shall be disqualified for a period of fifteen years from holding public office or positions, whether popularly elected or not, or the position of rector or director of an educational facility, or carrying out teaching functions therein; from operating a social communications medium or being the director or administrator thereof, or from serving functions therein that are related to education or neighborhood, professional, corporate, union, student, or association related matters, during that period. The preceding is understood to be without prejudice to other disqualifications or longer disqualification periods established by law. The offenses referred to in the previous paragraph shall be considered ordinary and not political for all legal purposes and individual pardons shall not be admissible with respect to them, except to commute the death penalty to life in prison 6 Petitioners’ brief dated May 20, 2005 3