admissible for the time being.”282 Subsequently, on July 7, 2003, the defense asked that “[two] witnesses [who he identified] be ordered to appear in order to bring some balance to [Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe’s] evidentiary situation,” so that they could be questioned as to whether they had seen directly and personally, or whether they knew by some direct and personal means, that Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe had set fire to the trucks in the Alto Bío Bío. The following day, the investigating judge ordered that the said witnesses be summoned.283 However, on July 28, 2003, the captain of the Carabineros of Sipolcar Concepción informed the investigating judge that one of the witnesses had been summoned to appear to testify but the other could not be summoned because “he refused to sign the summons, stating that he did not have the money to travel to Concepción.”284 The body of evidence does not show that the said statements were taken and the Court notes that the State did not provide any explanation or refer to specific evidence in this regard. 258. In this case, the presumed victim had no available means of proof. His arguments are of a negative nature, because they indicate the inexistence of an act. The Court has established on other occasions that, “in proceedings on human rights violations, the State’s defense cannot be based on the defendant’s impossibility of providing evidence that, in many cases, cannot be obtained without the cooperation of the State.”285 Consequently, the burden of proof fell on the State, and the latter has not proved that the requested measures were taken to allow the defense to obtain the appearance of the proposed witnesses. 259. The evidence that was considered to be “sufficient” to prove the participation of Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe in the acts of which he was convicted consists of four testimonial statements, three of which were provided by anonymous witnesses, to whom his defense did not have access.286 This means that a decisive significance was given to the statements of anonymous witnesses, which is inadmissible based on the considerations set forth previously. 260. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Chile violated the right of the defense to examine witnesses and to obtain the appearance of witnesses who might have thrown light on the facts, protected in Article 8(2)(f) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe. *** 261. The Court notes that, even though the Commission and the FIDH287 asserted the violation of Article 8(2)(f) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, and the Commission recommended to the State that it “adapt domestic laws governing criminal procedure so that they are compatible with [that right]” (infra para. 434), they did not submit legal arguments on the violation of the general obligation to adapt domestic 282 Cf. Judicial case file of the domestic criminal proceedings against Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe (file of annexes to the CEJIL motions and arguments brief, annex A, tome III, folios 1146 to 1148). 283 Cf. Judicial case file of the domestic criminal proceedings against Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe (file of annexes to the CEJIL motions and arguments brief, annex A, tome IV, folios 1507 to 1520). 284 Cf. Judicial case file of the domestic criminal proceedings against Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe (file of annexes to the CEJIL motions and arguments brief, annex A, tome IV, folio 1526). 285 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 135, and Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 73. 286 Cf. Judgment delivered on June 4, 2004, by the Third Chamber of the Concepción Court of Appeal, first, sixteenth and seventeenth consideranda (file of annexes to the CEJIL motions and arguments brief, annex A, folios 1723 to 1733), and judgment delivered on December 30, 2003, by the investigating judge of the Concepción Court of Appeal, seventeenth considerandum (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 20, folios 753 and 754). 287 Regarding the arguments submitted by the FIDH concerning the violation of Article 2 of the Convention only in their final arguments, the Court considers that they are time-barred (supra para. 49). 90