work.” Article 16 of the Counter-terrorism Act grants the court the authority “to order the prohibition to reveal, in any way, the identity of protected witnesses or expert witnesses, or any information that would lead to their identification,” as well as “the prohibition for them to be photographed, or their image to be recorded by any other means.” 233. The Public Prosecution Service founded its request on the fact that it was “absolutely necessary to adopt these measures to guarantee the proper protection of the witnesses, as well as of their family members and other persons connected to them by ties of affection, owing to the nature of the illegal acts under investigation and, in particular, considering their characteristics; circumstances that mean that the case investigated is particularly serious.” The Public Prosecution Service also asserted that “these measures do not impair the right of defense, because the prosecution has already provided the defense with the records of the investigation so that they can make the corresponding arguments in the hearing prior to the oral trial and prepare the respective cross-examinations for the oral trial.” The Traiguén guarantees judge admitted all aspects of this request.259 234. Two anonymous witnesses testified at the public hearings held in the trials against Messrs. Norín Catrimán and Pichún Paillalao. They did this behind a “screen” that hid their faces from all those present except the judges and with a “voice distorter.” The defense was able to examine them in these conditions. In the second trial, which was held because the first one was annulled, the defense counsel were allowed to know the identity of the said witnesses, but under the express prohibition to transmit this information to the defendants. Mr. Norín Catrimán’s defense counsel refused to be informed of the identity of the witnesses because he was unable to tell the defendant. In both the initial acquittal judgment and in the later judgment that delivered a guilty verdict, the testimony of the anonymous witnesses was taken into account and assessed.260 This factual framework makes it relevant to refer to the fact that, at the date of these proceedings, the last paragraph of Article 18 of the Counterterrorism Act established that “[t]he testimony of a protected witness or expert witness may never be received and introduced in the trial without the defense having been able to exercise its right to cross-examine him in person.” b. Proceedings against Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe 235. The criminal proceedings against Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe were conducted under the 1906 Code of Criminal Procedure and its amendments and had two stages, the preliminary and the plenary proceedings, both of them of a written nature (supra para. 104). According to articles 76 and 78 of this Code, during the preliminary proceedings, which was confidential, “the investigation of the acts that constitute[d] the offense” was conducted and also the “measures to prepare the trial.” According to article 449 of this Code, during the plenary adversarial proceedings, it was not necessary to re-submit the evidence collected during the preliminary proceedings if the defendant waived the submission of evidence at that stage and agreed that the judge could deliver his ruling, “without any more formalities than the indictment and the answer to this.” In addition, article 189 established the “right’ of “[e]very witness” “to request” the “Carabineros, the Police Investigation Unit, or the court” to “keep his identity secret from third parties” and “in specific serious cases,” the judge could “order special measures to protect the safety of the witness who requests this” that would remain in place for “the reasonable time established by the court and c[ould] be renewed as often as necessary.” 259 Cf. Application by the Public Prosecution Service, Traiguén local prosecutor, of September 2, 2002, addressed to the Traiguén guarantees judge, and Decision issued on September 3, 2002, by the Traiguén guarantees judge (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, appendix 1, folios 4422 to 4424). 260 Cf. Summary of the audio recordings of the oral trial held on March 31 and on April 8, 2001, before the Angol Oral Criminal Trial Court (file of helpful evidence presented by the State, folios 424 to 444), Judgment delivered on April 14, 2003, by the Angol Oral Criminal Trial Court, and Judgment delivered on September 27, 2003, by the Angol Oral Criminal Trial Court (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, annex 15 and 16, folios 509 to 574). 83