Llaupe’s defense on June 9, 2003. On June 12, 2003, Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe’s defense again requested copies of all the proceedings in the case file, a petition that was granted, handing over copies of the case file, with the exception of the “confidential records” that contained the statements made by anonymous witnesses. 143. On July 7, 2003 Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe’s defense submitted the answer to the indictment, requesting an “acquittal of all the offenses attributed to him” and again requesting parole for the accused considering that the “investigation had concluded.” By a decision of July 8, 2003, the investigating judge of the Concepción Court of Appeal declared that “the parole requested was inadmissible.” a) Judgment issued on December 30, 2003, by the investigating judge of the Concepción Court of Appeal 144. On December 30, 2003, the investigating judge of the Concepción Court of Appeal issued a judgment convicting Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe “as perpetrator of terrorist offenses” pursuant to the provisions of article 2.4 of Law No. 18,314, in relation to Article 1 of this law (supra para. 98), based on the incidents that occurred on September 29, 2001, and March 3 and 17, 2002. He imposed the punishment of “ten years and one day of medium-level rigorous imprisonment,” payment of trial costs, and the following ancillary penalties:151 […] permanent and absolute disqualification from public office or positions and political rights, and absolute disqualification from titled professions for the duration of the sentence […]. Also under article 9 of the Constitution of the Republic, the condemned man, Ancalaf Llaupe is disqualified 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 organization associated with education, or a neighborhood, professional, business, labor, student, or trade association, during that time. b) Judgment deciding a partial annulment delivered on June 4, 2004, by the Concepción Court of Appeal 145. Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe and his lawyer filed separate appeals against the judgment convicting him (supra para. 144). On December 30, 2003, during the procedure of personal notification of the judgment, Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe “indicated that he was filing an appeal against […] the Judgment.” His defense filed the appeal on January 3, 2004. In a decision of January 2, 2004, the alternate investigating judge granted the appeal filed by Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe. On January 5, 2004, the alternate investigating judge issued an order in which he rejected the appeal filed by the defense counsel on the grounds that “[p]ursuant to the provisions of article 27(g) of Law 12,927, the appeal against the final judgment was inadmissible […] owing to the statute of limitations.” 146. On January 6, 2004, Karina Prado, Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe’s wife, reiterated the request for a complete copy of the case file. The same day, the investigating judge of the Concepción Court of Appeal granted a copy of the case file, but did not allow access to the “confidential records.” 147. On June 4, 2004, the Concepción Court of Appeal delivered the judgment in second instance, in which it:152 151 Cf. Judgment delivered on December 30, 2003, by the investigating judge of the Concepción Court of Appeal, thirteenth and fourteenth consideranda (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, annex 20, folios 718 to 759). 152 Cf. Judgment delivered on June 4, 2004, by the Third Chamber of the Concepción Court of Appeal (file of annexes to the CEJIL motions and arguments brief, annex A, folios 1723 to 1733). 49