219. The Court considers that the fact that this criminal law codifying terrorist acts has been mostly applied to members of the Mapuche indigenous people does not, in itself, lead to the conclusion that there has been the alleged “selective” application of a discriminatory nature. Furthermore, the Court was not provided with sufficient information on the universe of violent or criminal acts of a similar nature at the time of the events of this case supposedly perpetrated by individuals who were not members of the Mapuche indigenous people, to whom, using the criteria based on which the Counter-terrorism Act was applied in the cases of Mapuche defendants, this law should also have been applied. 220. The information provided by the Government of Chile on one of the observations made by the Human Rights Committee in April 2007 should be taken into account. This referred, among other matter, to the amendment of Law No. 18,314: Amendment to Law 18,314 to bring it into line with article 27 of the [International] Covenant [on Civil and Political Rights] 22. While the content of this Act is exceptional, it is a regular law in that it applies to all citizens without distinction, and no discrimination was exercised against the Mapuche individuals prosecuted under it. Quite apart from the specific case of these individuals, it is necessary to understand the context of this situation, which in no way constitutes political persecution of the indigenous or Mapuche movements. The following background information must be taken into consideration: (a) Minority groups linked to the claims over indigenous land rights began an offensive in 1999 against forestry and agricultural companies in some provinces of regions VIII and IX (Biobío and Araucanía). They carried out illegal occupations and committed robbery and theft; set fire to forests, crops, employer’s buildings and houses, agricultural and forestry machinery and vehicles; attacked workers, forestry police, carabineros and property owners and their families; and even assaulted and threatened members of Mapuche communities who would not accept their methods. Their action bore no resemblance to that of the vast majority of indigenous organizations, which did not resort to violence to assert their legitimate aspirations; (b) The Act has been applied in situations of the utmost seriousness in nine prosecutions since 2001. The last occasion was in July 2003, in the case of the attack on the witness Luis Federico Licán Montoya, which left him disabled for life. Nine individuals of indigenous origin were convicted under the Act; (c) The legal action taken aimed to punish the perpetrators of the crimes, not the Mapuche people; punishing those who commit crimes does not constitute “criminalizing” a social demand, and much less an entire community; A/HRC/12/34/ Add.6, 5 October 2009, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, James Anaya, Addendum, The situation of indigenous peoples in Chile: follow-up to the recommendations made by the previous Special Rapporteur, para. 46 (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, annex 12, folio 441); UN Doc. CERD/C/CHL/C0/15-18, 7 September 2009, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 9 of the Convention, Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Chile, para. 15 (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, annex 14, folio 502), and UN Doc. CERD/C/CHL/CO/19-21, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the combined nineteenth to twenty-first periodic reports of Chile, adopted by the Committee at its eightythird session (12-30 August 2013, para. 14. 245 In his preliminary evaluation of his visit to Chile from July 17 to 30, 2013, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism stated that the protests by members of the Mapuche people related to “reclaiming their ancestral lands,” “have typically been characterised by land occupation as well as arson and other forms of physical attacks directed against agricultural, logging and industrial property associated with the commercial settlement of Mapuche territory,” and that “[t]he anti-terrorism legislation has been invoked by the local public prosecutors and by the Ministry of the Interior and Public Security in a relatively defined number of emblematic cases, mostly involving multiple accused. The statistics demonstrate that Mapuche protests account for the vast majority of prosecutions under the anti-terrorism legislation.” In his final report on the said visit, the Special Rapporteur stated that “there can be no doubt that the anti-terrorism law has been used disproportionately against persons accused of crimes in connection with the Mapuche land protests.” Cf. Statement by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism of 30 July 2013 on his visit to Chile from 17 to 30 July 2013, and UN Doc. A/HRC/25/59/Add.2, 14 April 2014, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Ben Emmerson, Addendum, Mission to Chile, para. 54 (merits file, tome V, folios 2566 to 2587). 77