III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Background 8. At issue in this case is the criminal trial of Aniceto Norín Catrimán and Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao. Before presenting the positions of the parties, the Inter-American Commission will give a brief summary of the trial, whose proceedings began with an investigation conducted by the Public Ministry, and concluded in the conviction of Mr. Norín and Mr. Pichún for the crime of making terrorist threats. 2 They are both currently serving their sentences and incarcerated. 9. With regard to the trial, the background information provided by the parties shows that the Prosecutor’s office of the Public Ministry began an investigation in December of 2002 of fires that had occurred in some living quarters and a tree farm, both in the municipality of Traiguén, and ordered that Mr. Norín and Mr. Pichún be placed in preventive detention. In September of 2002, the prosecutor’s office brought charges against Mr. Norín and Mr. Pichún and Ms. Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles. They were accused of the following crimes: terrorist arson of a residential house on December 12, 2001 in the Nancahue tree farm in Traiguén municipality; terrorist arson of 80 hectares of celebrated pine forest in the San Gregorio tree farm. 3 10. On March 31 and April 2 and 9, 2003, the oral trial was held in the Angol Criminal Trial Courthouse. On April 14, 2003 the Court acquitted the three defendants and ordered the Public Ministry and the private accusers to pay court costs and the defendants’ attorney’s fees. It also denied the civil suit filed by one of the private accusers, ordering the latter to pay court costs. 11. On April 24, 2003 the Public Ministry and the private accusers filed an appeal with the Supreme Court based on procedural violations in the lower court trial. On July 2, 2003 the Supreme Court vacated4 the judgment of acquittal and ordered the Retrial Court to proceed to a new trial. 12. The second trial was held on September 9, 13, 15 and 22, 2003, with a decision issued on September 27 of that year. In the Second trial Ms. Troncoso was acquitted. Mr. Pichún was acquitted of the charge of arson to the living quarters in the Nancahue tree farm, while Mr. Norín was acquitted of the charge of arson to the San Gregorio tree farm, as well as the threats to harm the owners and administrator of the Nancahue tree farm. In the same judgment Mr. Pichún was convicted of making terrorist threats against the administrator and owners of Nancahue tree farm as set forth in Article 7 of Law 18,314. Mr. Norín was convicted of making terrorist threats against the owners of the San Gregorio tree farm. 13. The two alleged victims were sentenced to five years and one day of imprisonment, minimum degree of punishment; complete and permanent disqualification from holding public office or exercising their political rights; and complete disqualification from exercising titled professions until the sentence has been served and the court costs have been paid. Furthermore, the convicted parties were disqualified from holding public office, elected or not; from being the principal or superior of an educational establishment or from serving as teachers; from running a media outlet or serving as director or administrator of same, or from performing functions related to issuing or disseminating opinions or information; and from being leaders of political organizations or community, professional, business, trade union, 2 Article 7 of Law 18,314 on acts of terrorism: An attempt to commit an act of terrorism described in this law shall be punished with the minimum sentence established by law for the consummated crime. If there is only one degree of punishment, the provisions of Article 67 of the Criminal Code shall be applied and the minimum shall be tentatively imposed. A serious or credible threat to commit any of the aforementioned crimes shall be punished as an attempt of same. Conspiracy with regard to the same crimes shall be punished with a sentence corresponding to the consummated crime, reduced by one or two degrees 3 The Regional Government for the Ninth Region and the Office of the Provincial Governor of Malleco intervened as complainants in the trial, Juan Ignacio Figueroa Elqueta intervened as a private accuser 4 Justice Juica voted against the Supreme Court decision as he was inclined to deny the appeal. 2