c) Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe was convicted by the investigating judge of the Concepción Court of Appeal in a judgment of December 30, 2003, of three criminal acts as perpetrator of the terrorist act consisting in to “[t]o place, send, activate, throw, detonate, or fire bombs or explosive or incendiary devices of any type, weapons or devices of great destructive power, or with toxic, corrosive or infectious effects” (article 2.4 of Law 18,314).48 On June 4, 2004, the Concepción Court of Appeal issued judgment in second instance, partially revoking the judgment; acquitting Mr. Ancalaf of two of the criminal acts, and confirming the conviction with the regard to one criminal act.49 34. As the Court has indicated in this Judgment, at the actual stage of the evolution of international law, the fundamental principle of equality and non-discrimination has entered the realm of jus cogens. The whole legal structure of national and international public order rests on it, and it permeates the whole legal system.50 In this regard, Article 24 of the American Convention prohibits de facto or de jure discrimination, not only with regard to the rights recognized in this instrument, but with regard to all the laws adopted by the State and to their application. In other words, it does not merely repeat the provisions of Article 1(1) of this instrument as regards the obligation of State to respect and ensure the rights recognized in this treaty without discrimination, but it establishes a right that also entails the State’s obligation to respect and ensure the principle of equality and non-discrimination in the safeguard of other rights and in all the domestic laws that it adopts, because it protects the right to “equal protection of the law” so that it also prohibits discrimination resulting from any inequality derived from domestic law or its application.51 Article 1(1) of the American Convention proscribes discrimination, in general, and includes prohibited categories of discrimination. Taking into account the criteria developed previously, the Court established that the ethnic origin of an individual is a category protected by the American Convention. This also means that, under Article 24 of this instrument, unequal treatment based on ethnic origin under domestic law or its application is also prohibited.52 35. In the following paragraphs, we analyze the criminal judgments convicting the victims that we consider contain a language and reasoning that reveal that what is involved is not the application of the presumption of the terrorist intent defined in the Counter-terrorism Act in force at the time; rather, it is verified that these judgments contain expressions or reasoning based on negative ethnic stereotypes and prejudices and that this constitutes a violation of the guarantee of judicial impartiality. A) The criminal judgment convicting Messrs. Norín and Pichún 48 Cf. Judgment delivered by the investigating judge of the Concepción Court of Appeal on December 30, 2003 (file of annexes to the Merits Report of the Commission 176/10 of the Commission, Annex 20, folios 718 to 759). 49 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Concepción Court of Appeal on June 4, 2004 (file of annexes to the CEJIL brief with motions, arguments and evidence, annex A.6, folios 1723 to 1733). 50 Para. 197 of the Judgment. Cf. Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 101, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010, Series C No. 214, para. 269. 51 Para. 199 of the Judgment. 52 Para. 206 of the Judgment. 12