Judges Ventura Robles and Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot dissenting. unanimously that: 11. It is not incumbent on the Court to rule on the alleged violation of the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions, established in Article 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the right of the defense to examine witnesses, protected in Article 8(2)(f) of this instrument, in the terms of paragraph 261 of this Judgment. unanimously that: 12. The State did not violate the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions, established in Article 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the right to appeal the judgment before a higher court, established in Article 8(2)(h) of this instrument, to the detriment of Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán and Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, in the terms of paragraphs 292 to 298 of this Judgment. unanimously that: 13. The State did not violate the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions, established in Article 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the right to personal liberty, established in Article 7 of this instrument, to the detriment of Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán and Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, in the terms of paragraphs 360 to 364 of this Judgment. unanimously that: 14. The State did not violate the right to personal integrity, established in Article 5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán and Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, in the terms of paragraphs 387 to 400 of this Judgment. AND ESTABLISHES unanimously that: 15. This Judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation. 16. The State must adopt all the administrative, judicial, or any other type of measures required to annul all aspects 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, José Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán and Patricia Troncoso Robles regarding which the Court has ruled in this Judgment, in the terms of paragraph 422 of this Judgment. 17. The State must provide, free of charge and immediately, medical and psychological or psychiatric treatment to the victims in this case who request this, as established in paragraphs 154