19. Despite the objections of the defense, the court accepted this testimony. The defense, in turn, decided to present no evidence in light of the presumption of innocence, as the evidence presented at trial did not come close to overcoming that presumption. The court issued its decision acquitting the defendants on April 14, 2003. Paragraph 10 of the preamble explaining the legal reasoning states: Considering the evidence presented by the Public Ministry and the private accuser, which was extensively debated and disputed during the hearing, it must be concluded that it does not meet the necessary standards of proof in terms of quality, certainty, or sufficiency to overcome the Constitutional presumption of innocence which protects the defendants. This allows these judges to peremptorily conclude that the material participation of PICHUN, TRONCOSO and NORIN in the crimes of which they have been accused has not been proven, according to the literal meaning of the charges lodged 10 against them. 20. Upon hearing the appeal based on procedural violations11 the Supreme Court ruled on July 2, 2003 to vacate the verdict and ordered a new trial. According to the petitioners, the Supreme Court’s decision was issued in violation of the presumption of innocence, because it states the following: Regarding the possible involvement of the defendants, it is clear and apparent that both the Public Ministry and the private accusers gave evidence during the oral proceedings, as was expressly mentioned in the decision. However, the only explanation of this evidence was completely ignored. The judgment does not cover it and does not give reasons for its possible exclusion or acceptance. It does not weigh the evidence as required by law, such that the facts the judges take to be shown do not really contradict the principles of logic, the maxims experience, or scientifically supported knowledge, which is the only way to 12 prevent any odd idea of arbitrariness by the judge issuing the decision. 21. According to the petitioners, verdicts can be vacated and trials declared null and void in the following cases: when the conduct of the trial or issuance of a decision infringes substantially on the rights or guarantees protected by the Constitution or international treaties ratified by Chile that are in force; or when a decision is issued on the basis of an erroneous application of law that would have had a substantial influence on the verdict.13 An appeal is also in order when one of the grounds set forth in Article 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code is present. 22. The petitioners stated that the Supreme Court did not speak to the grounds set forth in Article 373(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is precisely what gives it jurisdiction, and that the Supreme Court’s decision violates the principle of presumed innocence, because it demands that the lower court give detailed reasons as to why the defendants were acquitted. Likewise, the petitioners alleged that there was a violation of thene bis in idem principle with the ordering of a new trial for people who had already been acquitted. They acknowledged that the latter aspect is debatable, as it is necessary to determine whether the verdict of acquittal being appealed was a final, unappealable decision, and they state that the decision cannot be given to interpretation by the national courts. 23. The petitioners stated that with the second trial and conviction, their fear of having an unfair trial was realized because the judges were predisposed to convict, in violation of Article 8.1 and 8.2 of the American Convention. The petitioners asserted that: a) the judge must approach the case without prejudice and must not assume that the defendant is guilty. However, in clause 15 of its legal reasoning in the conviction, the court indicated: 10 Judgment of acquittal issued by the judge of the Angol Criminal Trial Court dated April 14, 2003. An appeal based on procedural violations is that which is granted to nullify the trial and final judgment, or only the latter, for the reasons expressly indicated in the law. Article 372, Criminal Procedure Code, Law 19,696 of 2000. 12 Supreme Court Ruling Rol Nº 1743-03, dated July 2, 2003. 13 Article 373, Criminal Procedure Code, Law 19,696 of 2000 11 4