65 them. In spite of that, these testimonies were decisive factors in the conclusions reached by the judges with respect to the subjective element of the crime of terrorism. 234. Under international human rights law, it is unacceptable for a person to be convicted of terrorist crimes based on inferences drawn from the sociopolitical or geographic context and the acts of third parties within that context. Any criminal trial and conviction must be based entirely and only on the individual conduct of the person on trial. While context and circumstances may play a role when that individual conduct is assessed, any verdict of criminal responsibility must be based on the conduct of the individual on trial, not on the conduct of third parties. This is of particular relevance in the case of terrorist offenses, where the international consensus is that the elements of the crime of terrorism are eminently subjective in nature, namely, the motive of the author. 235. For the reasons explained in this section the Commission finds that the Chilean State also violated the rights recognized in articles 8(1), 8(2) and 9 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, José Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Lican, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles and Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe. 3. The right of defense and the use of anonymous witnesses 2.1 General comments on the right recognized in Article 8(2)(f) and anonymous witnesses. 236. The guarantee provided in Article 8(2)(f) of the American Convention is one of those basic guarantees to which all persons are entitled, with full equality, in any criminal case prosecuted against him/her, as it is directly related to the adequate time and means to defend oneself from the 227 charges against one, which is essential to ensuring a fair trial. Citing the European Court, the InterAmerican Court has written that “one of the prerogatives of the accused must be the opportunity to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of 228 witnesses on his behalf, under the same conditions as witnesses against him.” 237. Another practice denounced by the organs of the inter-American human rights system as contrary to the right to be tried by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal is the use of “faceless” justice systems, principally because the anonymity of the prosecutors, judges and witnesses deprives the defendant of the basic guarantees of justice. A defendant in such circumstances does not know who is accusing him or her and therefore cannot know whether that person is qualified to do so. The defendant is also prevented from carrying out any effective examination of the opposing witnesses, as he or she does not possess any information regarding the witness’ background or motivations and does not know how the witness obtained information about the facts in question. For these reasons, the use of systems of secret justice, including the use of witnesses whose identity is not revealed, has been deemed by the Inter-American Court and the Commission to constitute, in principle, a violation of the due process guarantee of being able to question witnesses and the guarantee regarding publicity for 229 criminal trials. 227 IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/SER.L/V/II.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1, corr., October 22, 2002, paragraph 235. 228 I/A Court H.R., Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al., Judgment of May 30, 1999 (Merits, Reparations and Costs), Series C No. 52, paragraph 154. See also, I/A Court H.R., Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru, Judgment of November 25, 2005 (Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs ), Series C No. 137, paragraph 152; I/A Court H.R., Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru, Judgment of November 25, 2004 (Merits, Reparations and Costs), Series C No. 119, paragraph 184; Eur. Court H. R., Case of Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo, Decision of December 6, 1998, Series A no. 146, paragraph 78 and Eur. Court H. R., Case of Bönishc, judgment of May 6, 1985, Series A no. 92, paragraph 32. 229 IACHR, Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.102 Doc. 9 rev. 1, February 26, 1999, Chapter V, paragraphs 121-127. IACHR, Annual Report 1996, Chapter V, paragraphs 32 and 85 (Colombia). IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/SER.L/V/II.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1, corr., October 22, 2002, paragraph 233.