32. In the instant case, the analysis of impartiality is related to [the aspect of] personal impartiality, because it concerns the conduct of the judges in the specific cases in which it is alleged that they explicitly based conclusions of the judgments on prejudices. This makes it essential to assess whether the courts exteriorized negative prejudices in the adverse judgments, which had a significant or decisive influence on the reasoning of the conclusions of the ruling. For the purpose of this analysis, when we refer to a “prejudice,” we are referring to its negative connotation in the sense of a generalized unfavorable notion, perception or attitude towards individuals who belong to a group, owing to their membership in this group, which is characterized negatively. Thus, it is not related to the more general meaning relating to the ideas, notions and perceptions that a judge, like any other person, has acquired through experience and that do not exclude him from assessing, analyzing and reaching a rational conclusion in the specific case that he is deciding in the course of his jurisdictional functions. 3. The lack of impartiality of the judges who heard the criminal proceedings of the victims in this case 33. The eight victims in this case before the Inter-American Court were convicted in the domestic sphere as perpetrators of terrorist offenses in application of Law 18,314 that “[d]efines terrorist acts and establishes the punishments” ( known as the “Counterterrorism Act”). This case involves three criminal trials for events that occurred in 2001 and 2002 in Chile’s Regions VIII and IX. None of the events for which they were tried harmed anyone’s physical integrity or life. In summary, the result of these criminal proceedings was: c) Lonkos Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán and Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao were convicted – in a trial held after a previous trial in which they had been acquitted had been declared null and void – by the Angol Oral Criminal Trial Court in a judgment of September 27, 2003, as perpetrators of the offense of threat of terrorist arson.44 In a judgment of December 15, 2003, the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice denied the appeals for annulment that had been filed;45 d) Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Lican, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia and Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles were convicted by the Angol Oral Criminal Trial Court in a judgment of August 22, 2004, as perpetrators of the offense of terrorist arson.46 In a judgment of October 13, 2004, the Temuco Court of Appeal denied the appeals for annulment that had been filed,47 and 44 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Angol Oral Criminal Trial Court on September 27, 2003 (file of annexes to the Merits Report of the Commission 176/10, Annex 15, folios 509 to 554). 45 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile on December 15, 2003 (file of annexes to the Merits Report of the Commission 176/10, Appendix 1, folios 58 to 68). 46 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Angol Oral Criminal Trial Court on August 22, 2004 (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10 of the Commission, Annex 18, folios 608 to 687). 47 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Temuco Court of Appeal on October 13, 2004 (file of annexes to the Merits Report of the Commission 176/10 of the Commission, Annex 19, folios 689 to 716). 11