student or labor organizations in general. None of the alternative forms of serving the sentence provided for in law 18,2165 were afforded to the defendants; it was expressly ordered that the sentence be served through incarceration. 14. In early October 2003 the defense team of Mr. Norín and Mr. Pichún filed an appeal of the verdict before the Supreme Court based on procedural violations. On December 15, 2003 the Supreme Court denied the appeal. B. The Petitioners 15. The petitioners stated that Mr. Norín and Mr. Pichún are members of the Mapuche people and are Lonkos6 in the communities of Lorenzo Norín and Antonio Ñirripil, respectively. They added that the arrest, trial and conviction of their clients are part of what in Chile has come to be called the “Mapuche conflict.” According to the petitioners, this has been described in the media as “tensions caused by indigenous people who oppose the economic development of the country and subvert law and order and public safety.” 7 They indicated that the conflict pits “the indigenous people against the large forestry companies, large landholders and the State. The latter has reacted judicially by extending the debate to the courts, which means that the indigenous people have been put on trial for various crimes, making use of legislation extensively applied by the military regime to repress the opposition, practices that were harshly criticized during the military dictatorship by those who now hold power (the State Security Law and the Anti-terrorism Law).”8 16. The petitioners stated that the prosecution of Mr. Norín and Mr. Pichún is not an isolated incident, as the Chilean State has been judicially repressing the Mapuche because of their demands that their land be recognized or reinstated. The State has been applying special legislation enacted during the military dictatorship, which has led to the incarceration of a large number of Mapuche, accused of what the State calls crimes of terrorism such as arson, land takeovers, and damages. 17. With regard to the criminal trial against Mr. Norín and Mr. Pichún, the petitioners stated that the Public Ministry and the private accusers requested the application of Law 18,314 on terrorist conduct enacted in 1984. It establishes longer sentences than those of common crimes, carries a series of restrictions on political rights and personal liberty, allows for longer periods of detention, allows the government to conduct its investigation in secret for up to six months, and permits wiretapping and other restrictions. They allege that in the case of Mr. Norín and Mr. Pichún the request to apply the anti-terrorism law was made because the private accuser is a former Minister of State and current member of the Constitutional Court. 18. The petitioners stated that during the trial the investigation had been conducted in secret for six months, which is only allowed by law for alleged terrorist conduct.9 For common crimes the time limit on secret investigation is 60 days. In the first trial, the Public Ministry and the private accusers offered to produce evidence to substantiate the charges in the form of 67 witnesses, 13 experts, and documentary evidence. During the oral proceedings, two witnesses offered by the prosecutor and the accusers gave testimony while hidden behind a screen. The defense was unable to know the identity of the witnesses, which they feel constitutes a violation of the right to due process. 5 Law 18,216 of 1983 establishes alternative forms of punishment other than deprivation of liberty. These alternative forms of punishment are: a) conditional suspension of sentence; b) nighttime detention; and c) probation or supervised release. 6 Traditional authority of the Mapuche people. 7 Petitioners brief of August 15, 2003, p. 2. 8 Petitioners’ brief of August 15, 2003, p. 4 9 Article 21 of Law 18,314 on acts of terrorism: If, during the investigation of the crimes set forth in this law the Public Ministry deems that there is a risk to the safety of the witnesses or experts, it may order that certain acts, records or documents remain secret regarding one or more of the parties, according to the provisions of Article 182 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The time limit established in clause three of this provision may be extended for a total of up to six months. Anyone who reveals the acts, records, or documents ordered to remain secret shall be punished with medium- to maximum-degree short-term imprisonment 3