Arauco-Malleco was a de facto terrorist organization, and that Mr. Pichún belonged to it, without analyzing the impact of this on the perpetration of the offense.280 252. Based on the above, the Court concludes that, when delivering a guilty verdict, a decisive significance was accorded to the testimony of an anonymous witness, which constitutes a violation of the right of the defense to examine witnesses, established in Article 8(2)(f) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao. b. Criminal proceedings against Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe 253. Regarding the criminal proceedings against Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe, the Court will analyze the second instance judgment convicting him delivered by the Concepción Court of Appeal on June 4, 2004, which revoked partially the first instance judgment delivered by the investigating judge of the Concepción Court of Appeal on December 30, 2003 (supra paras. 144 to 147), as well as the pertinent parts of the first instance judgment. In both judgments the testimony of three anonymous witnesses was taken into account. 254. The Court will also take into account the specific impact that the inquisitorial nature of the criminal proceedings under the former Code of Criminal Procedure applicable to the case had in this regard (supra paras. 101 to 104). In particular, Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe was not only unaware of the identity of the said witnesses, but also had no knowledge of the content of their testimony because the preliminary proceedings were of a confidential nature and because, when he was provided with information on those proceedings, he was refused access to the confidential files. It was only on June 12, 2003, almost two month after the preliminary proceedings had ended and three days after he had been notified of the indictment, that his request for copies of the case file was granted, but access to the confidential files was expressly excluded, without the investigating judge offering any justification in this regard (supra paras. 138 a 146). Obviously, this made it impossible to exercise control over the adoption and retention of the anonymity. 255. Furthermore, the regulation of this measure under article 189 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in juxtaposition with articles 76 and 78 of this code, which established the confidential nature of the preliminary proceedings (supra para. 235), had an impact on the obligation to submit the adoption and retention of the measure to judicial control because, since the accused was even unaware of the existence of the testimony, he was prevented from requesting control of its legality until he had access to the preliminary proceedings. 256. Accordingly, Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe’s defense was only able to know the content of the testimony of the anonymous witnesses indirectly and partially based on the references to it in the judgment of December 30, 2003, convicting Mr. Ancalaf. The summary did not copy the statements completely, but merely those parts that served as evidence to sentence and convict Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe for the perpetration of a terrorist offense.281 257. Regarding the right of Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe’s defense to obtain the appearance of proposed witnesses, on December 10, 2002, the defense asked that the testimony of seven witnesses be ordered “in order to clarify the defendant’s situation.” The same day, the investigating judge denied the request without providing the reasons for his decision, merely indicating that “[n]ot relationship of this document to the legal analysis of the perpetration of the supposed threats by Mr. Pichún Paillalao. Cf. Judgment delivered on September 27, 2003, by the Angol Oral Criminal Trial Court, eighth and sixteenth considerandum (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, annex 15, folios 509 to 554). 280 Cf. Judgment delivered on September 27, 2003, by the Angol Oral Criminal Trial Court, sixteenth considerandum (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, annex 15, folios 509 to 554). 281 Cf. 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 718 to 759). 89