6. According to the testimony of Osvaldo Carvajal, both of the defendants are members of the Coordinadora Arauco Malleco C.A.M, a de facto organization – he repeated – and one of a violent nature.253 *** That the facts described in the preceding considerandum constitute the terrorist offense established in article 2.4 of Law No 18,314, in relation to article 1 of that law. This is because they reveal that actions were taken in order to instill in some of the population a justified fear of falling victim to such crimes, bearing in mind the circumstances, and also the nature and effects of the means employed, as well as the evidence that they were the result of a premeditated plan to attack the property of third parties engaged in work relating to the construction of the Ralco Power Plant of Alto Bío Bío, all with the purpose of forcing the authorities to take decisions that would prevent the construction of this plant.254 *** 19. That the evidence relating to the first, seventh and thirteenth conclusions of the first instance ruling constitute judicial presumptions that, carefully assessed, prove that the trucks and the backhoe were set on fire in the context of the Pehuenche conflict, in Region 8, province of Bío Bío, Santa Bárbara commune, in the sector of the cordillera known as Alto Bío Bío, which is related to the opposition to the construction of the Ralco Hydroelectric Plant, and where, also, it is well-known that the sisters, Berta and Nicolasa Quintremán Calpán are opposed to the Endesa project because their land – which contains their ancestors, their origins, their culture and their traditions – will be flooded when the Plant is built. The acts took place in this context as a way of compelling the authorities to take decisions, or of imposing demands to halt the construction of the Plant. 20. That, to this end, on September 29, 2001, and March 3 and 17, 2002, two trucks and a backhoe were set on fire and, subsequently, two more trucks; all vehicles working for Endesa. The first incident involved several individuals all except one of whom wore hoods; they fired a shotgun and hit the truck driver with a stick. The second incident involved at least two individuals with their faces covered, one of them, armed with a shotgun, fired two shots into the air. On the third occasion, a group of hooded individuals was involved, one of whom carried a firearm and fired shots into the air. In all these incidents, inflammable fuel, such as gasoline or a similar product, was used. The illegal acts described above were carried out violently without observing the legal and institutional order in force, resorting to previously planned acts of violence. Considering how the events occurred, the place and the modus operandi, they were perpetrated to create situations of insecurity, instability and anxiety, instilling fear in order to present demands to the authorities under criminal pressure imposing conditions in order to achieve their objectives.255 228. The Court considers that the mere use of this reasoning, which reveals stereotypes and biases, as grounds for the judgments constituted a violation of the principle of equality and nondiscrimination and the right to equal protection of the law, recognized in Article 24 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. 229. The allegations of a violation of the right to an impartial judge or court, established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, are closely linked to the presumption of the terrorist intent “to instill […] fear in the general population” (a subjective element of the definition) that, as the Court has already declared (supra paras. 168 to 177), violates the principle of legality and the guarantee of presumption of innocence established in Articles 9 and 8(2) of the Convention, respectively. The alleged violation of Article 8(1) should be considered subsumed in the previously declared violation of Articles 9 and 8(2). Consequently, the Court considers that it is not necessary to rule in this regard. 230. The Court concludes that the State has violated the principle of equality and nondiscrimination and the right to equal protection of the law recognized in Article 24 of the 253 Fifteenth considerandum of the Judgment delivered on September 27, 2003, by the Angol Oral Criminal Trial Court (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, annex 15, folios 513 and 514). 254 Fifteenth considerandum of the Judgment delivered on December 30, 2003, by the investigating judge of the Concepción Court of Appeal (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, annex 20, folios 751 and 752). 255 Nineteenth and twentieth consideranda of the Judgment delivered on June 4, 2004, by the Third Chamber of the Concepción Court of Appeal (file of annexes to the CEJIL motions and arguments brief, annex A, folios 1730 and 1731). 81