31 95. In addition, the following ancillary penalties were imposed on them under Article 9 of the Constitution of Chile: (…) Each and every one of them, as perpetrators of the crime of terrorist arson, is sentenced to (…) the ancillary penalties of complete disqualification for life from public office, public employment, and political rights as well as complete disqualification from titled professions for the duration of the 111 conviction. 4. The motions filed to have the convictions vacated and the decision by the Temuco Appeals Court 96. The five petitioners filed motions to have their convictions overturned. The five motions cited the oral criminal trial court’s failure to weigh the relevant evidence, which in their view fit the grounds for nullification established in Article 374-e of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Juan Ciríaco 112 Millacheo’s motion cited a misreading of the testimonial evidence. The motions also asserted violations of the right to equality by virtue of the fact that the criteria used to admit and weigh the defense’s evidence were different from those used to weigh the accusers’ evidence. 97. When deciding the merits of the motions seeking to have the convictions overturned, the Temuco Appeals Court began by narrowing the kind of evidence that the judges could consider; the Temuco Appeals Court asserted that its analysis had to be confined to determining whether the conviction being challenged complied with the legal standard; it could not address the facts that led to 113 the petitioners’ prosecution and conviction . 98. Applying that standard, the Appeals Court concluded that the oral criminal trial court had adequately assessed and weighed the evidence that supported its findings. It explained that while 111 Verdict of the Angol oral criminal trial court – chamber with jurisdiction, September 27, 2003; Consideranda 19. Attached to the original petition that Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Juan Ciríaco Millacheo Licán filed with the IACHR, April 13, 2005. 112 Decision of the Temuco Appeals Court, dated October 13, 2004, attached to the original petition that Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Juan Ciríaco Millacheo Licán filed with the IACHR, April 13, 2005. Consideranda One of that decision summarizes the grounds for nullification that the complainants invoked: “That the grounds cited in the various motions filed by JOSE HUENCHUNAO MARIÑAN, PATRICIA ROXANA TRONCOSO ROBLES, JUAN PATRICIO MARILEO SARAVIA, JOSE FLORENCIO JAIME MARILEO SARAVIA and JUAN CIRIACO MILLACHEO LICAN seeking to have their convictions overturned, include the one contemplated in Article 374-e) in relation to Article 342-c, all provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by virtue of the fact that the lower court failed to weigh relevant evidence, thereby violating that article of the Code of Criminal Procedure, both with respect to the evidence introduced by the public prosecutor and the evidence introduced by the defense in each particular case. The motion filed by JUAN CIRIACO MILLACHEO LICAN also claimed that the way in which a portion of the testimony was assessed was a violation of the principles of logic and experience, since he claimed there was contradiction in the assessment of the testimony given by JUAN IGNACIO QUEIPUL LEVINAO who in Consideranda 17 incriminates JUAN CIRIACO MILLACHEO LICAN when, according to the complainant, it was clear that he did not know the accused, since he was unable to recognize him at the hearing and identified him as the one wearing a green jacket, when he was actually wearing a blue jacket.” 113 Decision of the Temuco Appeals Court, dated October 13, 2004, attached to the original petition that Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Juan Ciríaco Millacheo Licán filed with the IACHR, April 13, 2005. Consideranda One of that decision summarizes the grounds for nullification that the complainants invoked: “That the grounds cited in the various motions filed by JOSE HUENCHUNAO MARIÑAN, PATRICIA ROXANA TRONCOSO ROBLES, JUAN PATRICIO MARILEO SARAVIA, JOSE FLORENCIO JAIME MARILEO SARAVIA and JUAN CIRIACO MILLACHEO LICAN seeking to have their convictions overturned, include the one contemplated in Article 374-e) in relation to Article 342-c, all provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by virtue of the fact that the lower court failed to weigh relevant evidence, thereby violating that article of the Code of Criminal Procedure, both with respect to the evidence introduced by the public prosecutor and the evidence introduced by the defense in each particular case. The motion filed by JUAN CIRIACO MILLACHEO LICAN also claimed that the way in which a portion of the testimony was assessed was a violation of the principles of logic and experience, since he claimed there was contradiction in the assessment of the testimony given by JUAN IGNACIO QUEIPUL LEVINAO who in Consideranda 17 incriminates JUAN CIRIACO MILLACHEO LICAN when, according to the complainant, it was clear that he did not know the accused, since he was unable to recognize him at the hearing and identified him as the one wearing a green jacket, when he was actually wearing a blue jacket.”