64. However, the petitioners stated that in the trial of Mr. Norín and Mr. Pichún there was a
failure to provide freedom from ex post facto laws, which “presumes a clear definition of the
criminalized conduct, … establishes its elements, and allows it to be distinguished from
behaviors that are either not punishable or punishable but not with imprisonment.”28 This
applies because the law on terrorist conduct, under which they were prosecuted, has vague
definitions of penal categories, establishes greater sentences than those of common crimes,
carries a series of restrictions on political rights and personal liberty, allows for longer periods
of detention, allows investigations to be conducted in secret for up to six months, and allows
wiretapping and other restrictions. The petitioners specifically argued that the alleged victims
were sentenced to incarceration for the crime of “making terrorist threats,” a penal category
that is not established in the law on terrorist conduct. They also asserted in the petition that
the criminal trial did not respect the principle of freedom from ex post facto laws,29 the
requirement to have a tribunal that was previously established by law, nor the precautions
required by a democratic system to ensure that criminal sanctions are adopted with utmost
respect for the basic rights of individuals after a careful examination to determine whether
illicit behavior occurred.30 The petitioners further argued that the State violated the alleged
victims’ fundamental rights to judicial guarantees, such as the right of the defense to properly
examine witnesses.
65. Based on the arguments and documentation provided by the parties, as well as InterAmerican jurisprudence, the Commission does not find the petition to be manifestly groundless
or out of order. It finds, prima facie, that the petitioners’ allegations regarding the special
penal regime applied to the alleged victims, the definition of illicit behavior or the penal
category utilized, the determination of the competent judge, and the right to one’s defense
may all constitute violations of the rights guaranteed by Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention,
and Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Aniceto Norín Cartimán and Pascual
Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao. The petitioners alleged that a special penal regime more severe
than that for ordinary crimes was used against the victims because of their ethnic origin. The
Commission considers that these reported acts may constitute a violation of Article 24 of the
American Convention, and also Article 1.1 of that instrument.
66. The Inter-American Commission therefore considers that the petition satisfies the
requirements established by Article 47.b and c of the American Convention.
V.
CONCLUSIONS
67. The IACHR concludes that it is competent to hear the merits of this case and that the
petition is admissible under Article 46 and 47 of the American Convention and Articles 30 and
37 of its Rules of Procedure.
THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS,
DECIDES:
1. To declare this case admissible with respect to the alleged violations of Articles 8, 9, and 24
and regarding Articles 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights.
2. To notify the State and the petitioners of this decision.
28
See, e.g. the analysis conducted by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Ricardo Canese
Case,Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 174; Cantoral Benavides Case, Judgment of August 18,
2000. Series C No. 69, para 157; the Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para.
121; and the De la Cruz Flores Case. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, Title VII.
29
See, e.g. the analysis conducted by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Ricardo Canese Case, August
31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 177; and Baena Baena Ricardo et al. Case, Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C
No. 72, para 107; and De la Cruz Flores Case. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, Title VII.
30
See, e.g., the analysis conducted by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Baena Ricardo et al. Case.
Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 106; and I/A Court H. R., Case of De la Cruz Flores. Judgment
of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, Title VII; and, inter alia, Eur. Court H.R. Ezelin judgment of 26 April 1991,
Series A no. 202, para. 45; and Eur. Court H.R. Müller and Others judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, para.
29
12