that seek to protect the persons subject to their jurisdiction against acts of terrorism, States have the obligation to ensure that the criminal justice system and respect for procedural guarantees abide by the principle of non-discrimination.225 States must ensure that the objectives and effects of the measures taken in the criminal prosecution of terrorist actions are not discriminatory, allowing individuals to be subjected to ethnic stereotypes or characterizations.226 b) Application to this specific case b.i) Alleged discriminatory and selective application of the Counterterrorism Act to members of the Mapuche indigenous people 211. When the common interveners argued that there had been “selective application of the Counter-terrorism Act,” they were referring to statistical data corresponding to the time of the events. In addition, the Commission and the representatives have mentioned a “context” of “selective application” of the Counter-terrorism Act “to individuals belonging to the Mapuche indigenous people” and to the “criminalization of the social protest” of this people (supra paras. 189 to 191). 212. Starting with the latter point, the Court understands that it is necessary to make a distinction between the attitudes towards the demonstrations in favor of the Mapuche people’s claims disseminated by a major segment of the mass media (supra para. 93), and the ways in which the Ministry of the Interior and Public Security, and the Public Prosecution Service acted227 when deciding in which cases to call for the application of the Counter-terrorism Act and the arguments on which this was based, and the final decisions adopted by the Chilean courts in this regard. The Court must focus its attention on the decisions of the courts, while taking into consideration the possibility that the way in which the media presented the so-called “Mapuche conflict” or the submissions of the Public Prosecution Service may have unduly influenced these decisions. 213. In particular, it should be stressed that, at the time of these trials, a legal presumption was in effect in Law No. 18,314 – that this Court has already declared incompatible with the principles of legality and presumption of innocence (supra paras. 168 to 177) – which established that the intention of instilling fear in the general population (special terrorist intent), would be presumed “based on the fact that the offense was committed using explosive or incendiary devices, weapons of great destructive powers, toxic, corrosive or infectious substances, or others that can cause major devastation, or by sending letters, packages or similar objects with explosive or toxic effects.” 214. Regarding the second point, even though it was not, perhaps, the common interveners’ intention that the Court analyze whether the alleged violations that affected the presumed victims in this case resulted from indirect discrimination arising from the disproportionate impact or indirect discriminatory effects of the said criminal law, the Court will examine, with the means available to it, the so-called “context” of “selective application” of the Counter- 225 Cf. UN Doc. A/57/18, 8 March 2001, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Statement on racial discrimination and measures to combat terrorism, adopted following the terrorist acts perpetrated in the United States of America on September 11, 2001, p. 102. 226 Cf. UN Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol.II), International Human Rights Instruments, Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, General recommendation No. XXX of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2005), para. 10. 227 In its answering brief, the State explained that “the Ministry of the Interior and Public Security and the Public Prosecution Service are the only public bodies legitimized to file actions against persons who, in their opinion, have committed offenses defined in the Counter-terrorism Act.” See also: Table of criminal proceedings in Chile presented by the State as helpful evidence (file of helpful evidence presented by the State, folio 61). 73