perpetration of violent acts was presumed, without further justification. In addition, the judgment considered as an element to establish the participation of the presumed victims in the offenses of terrorist threat, their membership in the Coordinadora de Comunidades en Conflicto Arauco Malleco (CAM) which the court referred to as “having violent tendencies.” No objective evidence or proof was offered to confirm this organization’s character or nature.55 In this regard, it should be recalled that, in another proceeding, the presumed victims were acquitted of the offense of “conspiracy to commit a crime” in relation to their supposed membership “in a terrorist organization that operated under the aegis of this indigenous organization.”56 B) The criminal judgment convicting Messrs. Marileo Saravia, Huenchunao Mariñán and Millacheo Licán, and Ms. Troncoso Robles 39. In the criminal judgment that convicted Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán and Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles as perpetrators of the offense of terrorist arson, the criminal court, when analyzing both the participation and the terrorist nature of the offense, followed a line of reasoning in which, once again, it circumscribed conclusions regarding the special subjective element of the criminal responsibility of the presumed victims to contextual facts regarding which it makes no direct probative or legal connection to the accused.57 Regarding the terrorist intent, in the nineteenth 55 See the fifteenth considerandum of the judgment issued by the Angol Oral Criminal Trial Court on September 27, 2003, in which the domestic Court made an analysis: “[r]egarding the participation of the two accused” as authors of offenses “of terrorist threats”: […] Regarding the participation of both accused, the following must be considered: 1. As general background information and from the evidence provided during the trial by the Public Prosecution Service and the private complainants, it is a well-known and notorious fact that de facto organizations have been operating have existed in the area for some time that commit acts of violence or incite violence on the pretext of their land claims. Their methods include different types of acts of violence against logging companies, and small- and medium-scale farmers, all of whom have in common that they are owners of land that adjoins, is next to or near indigenous communities who claim to have historical rights to these properties. The said actions are aimed at reclaiming lands considered to be ancestral, and the illegal occupation is a means used to achieve the more ambitious goal: thereby recovering part of their ancestral lands and strengthening the territorial identity of the Mapuche people. […] 2. It has not been sufficiently proved that these acts were caused by individuals who do not belong to the Mapuche communities, because their purpose is to create a strong climate of harassment of the property owners in the sector in order to instill fear in them and, thus, force the owners to accede to their demands. The rationale relates to the so-called “Mapuche problem,” because the perpetrators were aware of the areas claimed or because no Mapuche community or property has been harmed. 3. It has been proved that the accused, Pascual Pichú, is Lonko of the “Antonio Ñirripil” community and Segundo Norín is Lonko of the “Lorenzo Norín” community, and this signifies status in the community and a certain degree of leadership and control over it. 4. It should also be emphasized that the accused Pichún and Norín have been convicted of other offenses involving land occupation committed prior to these events against forested properties near their respective communities, […]. 5. The Mapuche communities of Didaico and Temulemu adjoin the Nancahue forest farm, and 6. According to the testimony of Osvaldo Carvajal, both of the accused belong to the Coordinadora Arauco Malleco C.A.M, a violent de facto organization. 56 Cf. para. 215 of the Judgment. 57 In the sixteenth considerandum of the judgment delivered on August 22, 2004, by the Angol Oral Criminal Trial Court, when referring to the “participation as direct authors of the fire at the Poluco Pidenco property,” the Court affirmed: 14