3 enforcement of the sentences, the reduction thereof, or the implementation of penitentiary benefits [beneficios penitenciarios], do not address the purpose of this reparative remedy, the stated objective of which is to vacate all effects of the sentences handed down in violation of different extremes of the American Convention. On the recommendation to "if the victims choose so, they must have the possibility that his sentence be revised through a process that is carried out in accordance with the principle of legality, the prohibition discrimination and guarantees of due process" the state broadly stated that the Constitution establishes the principles and guarantees and that the Chilean criminal procedure regulates the applications for annulment, appeal and even review of final judgments. Regarding the motion to vacate, the State noted that were brought by the victims and rejected by courts. With regard to the judicial review, the State declared the legal basis of it and its grounds. The Commission notes that the information provided by the State on this point cannot assess the specific mechanism that would allow victims to have a review on recommended terms, particularly given that the causal origin of judicial review is not possible identify any cases in which this case is subsumed. Regarding the recommendation to "compensate the victims both materially and morally for the violations committed" the state described a "general negotiation process intended to provide a solution to the situations that generated the issues considered in this case" and indicated that this process should cover the repairs recommended by the Commission. The State indicated that would give special attention "to the specific case" and provided general information on the process called "Mesa de Diálogo para un Reencuentro Histórico" focused on various needs of indigenous peoples in Chile. Moreover, the State indicated that there are constitutional and legal mechanisms through which victims of this case may require reparation. The Commission notes that the information provided by the State is general and it is unclear how the roundtable is an appropriate mechanism to provide redress for violations in the case. On the contrary, the available information indicates that, to date, the Chilean government has not provided any measure of reparation for victims of the case. On the recommendation to "adjust terrorism legislation -Law 18,314-, so that it is compatible with the principle of legality regulated in Article 9 of the American Convention", the State indicated that "the Antiterrorism Law was significantly amended under Law 20.467 promulgated on 5 October 2010 and published on 8 October of the same year." The State disagreed with the observations made by the Commission in its report on merits in that the law does not remedy the problems identified. The Committee recalls that in its background report it noted the amendments introduced by Law 20,467 and offered some thoughts about them. In short, the Commission noted that the new legislation continues to be vague and broad which generated the violations in this case. With respect to the recommendation to “to adapt its domestic criminal procedure legislation so as to make it compatible with the rights enshrined in Articles 8.2(f) and 8.2(h) of the American Convention,” the State indicated that its Anti-terrorism Law had been amended to achieve a “reasonable balance between the right to cross-examine witnesses offering testimony in a trial, and the need (…) to protect the life and physical integrity of witnesses, their family members, and third parties.” With respect to Article 8.2(h) of the Convention, the State referred to the nature of the appeal to vacate [recurso de nulidad] in Chile’s criminal procedure system and challenged the IACHR’s conclusions in the sense that said appeal does not meet the guarantee set forth under Article 8.2(h) of the American