providing grounds for the decision that are required of judges under articles 297 and 36 of the Criminal Procedural Code, and had examined some pertinent probative elements superficially.119 c) Partial conviction issued on September 27, 2003, by the Angol Oral Criminal Trial Court 116. The Angol Oral Criminal Trial Court heard the proceedings against Messrs. Norín Catrimán and Pichún Paillalao and Ms. Troncoso in a new trial. The court was composed of three different judges from those who decided the acquittal of April 14, 2003 (supra paras. 112 and 113). On September 27, 2003, the court delivered judgment.120 Regarding Patricia Troncoso, it declared that the presumption of her innocence had not been invalidated, that “there was no direct evidence that connected her with possible authorship of the offenses of which she was accused” and, consequently, acquitted her of the offenses she was charged with. The court reached the same conclusion with regard to the alleged criminal responsibility of Messrs. Pichún Paillalao and Norín Catrimán for the offenses of “terrorist arson,” but convicted them as perpetrators “of the offenses of threat of terrorist [arson]” applying the legal presumption of intent to instill fear.121 It convicted Mr. Pichún Paillalao “as perpetrator of the offense of terrorist threats against the administrator and owners of the Nancahue forest farm,” and Mr. Norín Catrimán “as perpetrator of the offense of terrorist threats against the owners of the San Gregorio plantation,” “both acts having occurred during 2001 and thereafter in the Traiguén commune.” 117. The court imposed the following punishments on each of them: a) Five years and one day of long-term rigorous imprisonment (presidio) at the lowest level;122 b) The ancillary penalties of “[a]bsolute and permanent disqualification from public office and positions, and absolute disqualification from titled professions for the duration of the sentence”; c) The ancillary penalties of “disqualification for 15 years from discharging public duties or holding public office, regardless of whether or not the appointment is by popular election; from being the rector or director of an educational establishment or performing teaching activities therein; from operating a social communications media outlet or being a director or manager thereof, or performing therein functions connected with the broadcast or dissemination of opinions or information; and from being the leader of a political organization, an 119 Cf. Judgment delivered on July 2, 2003, by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, annex 17, folios 575 to 606). 120 Cf. Judgment delivered on September 27, 2003, by the Angol Oral Criminal Trial Court (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, annex 15, folios 508 to 554). 121 In its thirteenth considerandum, the Angol Oral Criminal Trial Court indicated that “[t]he foregoing is substantiated by the legal presumption established in the second subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Law 18,314, currently amended by the new principles on the assessment of evidence indicated in articles 295 and ff. of the Criminal Procedural Code. Thus, today, and based on the principle of logic, the justified fear of the population or part of it of being victims of offenses of the same type is proved by the fact that the latter has been threatened of being harmed by the perpetration of an offense by means of incendiary devices.” Cf. Judgment delivered on September 27, 2003, by the Angol Oral Criminal Trial Court, thirteenth considerandum (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, annex 15, folio 540). 122 According to article 32 of the Chilean Criminal Code, the punishment of imprisonment (presidio) differs from the punishments of confinement (reclusión) and incarceration (prisión), because the former signifies that the prisoner must perform tasks established in the rules of the respective detention center. 41