19,970.”410 In particular, with regard to José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán, it requested the annulment of the execution of their criminal sentences. 420. The State, without contesting the arguments submitted by the common interveners, indicated that the Counter-terrorism Act had been “amended towards the end of 2010 by the enactment of Law No. 20,467,” in relation to “the definition and punishment of terrorist offenses, which restricted the offense and, in some cases, reduced the punishments applicable to [such] offenses.” Furthermore, without referring specifically to the judgments convicting the victims in this case, it explained that, “considering the fundamental changes introduced [in this] law, Chile’s domestic legislation contains certain legal mechanisms to review criminal judgments delivered based on laws that are more onerous for those convicted, ensuring strict compliance with the principles of equality before the law for those who benefit from a new more favorable law enacted before their conviction and those who have been subject to final judgments for similar acts.” It indicated that “the principle of the imperative and retroactive application to the accused or the person who has been convicted of the most favorable criminal law is absolute and of constitutional rank” and that, according to article 18 of the Criminal Code, “it applies to ongoing cases and also to those that have concluded in a judicial sentence, which can be modified [ex officio or at the request of the interested party] at any time, in order to adjust it to the new more favorable law, waiving the authority of a final judgment.” 421. As indicated in this Judgment, the sentences convicting the eight victims in this case – determining their criminal responsibility for terrorist offenses – were delivered based on a law that violated the principle of legality and the right to the presumption of innocence (supra paras. 168 to 177), and imposed ancillary penalties that entailed undue and disproportionate restrictions to the right to freedom of thought and expression (supra para. 374) and to the exercise of political rights (supra para. 383). The Court also found that, in the substantiation of the judgments, reasoning was used that revealed stereotypes and prejudices, which constituted a violation of the principle of equality and non-discrimination and the right to equal protection of the law (supra paras. 223 to 228 and 230). Added to this, in the case of Messrs. Pichún Paillalao and Ancalaf Llaupe, there were violations of the right of defense protected in Article 8(2)(f) of the Convention (supra paras. 248 to 259) and, with regard to seven of the victims in this case, the right to appeal these adverse criminal judgments was violated (supra paras. 274 to 291). This means that the sentences were arbitrary and incompatible with the American Convention. 422. Therefore, in view of the characteristics of this case, and as it has on previous occasions,411 the Court establishes that the State must adopt, within six months of notification of this Judgment, all the administrative, judicial or any other type of measure necessary to nullify all the effects of the criminal judgments convicting Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles that the Court has referred to in this Judgment. This includes: (i) annulling the declaration that the eight victims in this case were perpetrators of terrorist offenses; (ii) annulling the prison sentences and ancillary penalties, consequences and records, as soon as possible, as well as any civil sentences imposed on the victims, and (iii) ordering the release of the victims who are still on parole. In addition, the State must, within six months of notification of this Judgment, eliminate the judicial, administrative, criminal or police 410 In its final written arguments, the FIDH clarified that although the DNA samples “are not part of the judgments, they do form part of their effects, because following [the delivery] of the judgments, Law 19,970 was enacted […] which imposed the obligation to register the DNA of those convicted of terrorist offenses” and indicated that the DNA of José Benicio Huenchunao, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia and Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia had been recorded.” 411 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88; Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile; Case of Kimel v. Argentina; Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama; Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. 138