4 Convention. In brief, the State mentioned that “a review of the facts in second instance implies the qualification of proof before a different court; one that comes to hear the matter in a remote and half-obscured context as opposed to the court in which that proof was originally substantiated.” With respect to modifications regarding the use of unidentified witnesses, the Commission considers that the information furnished by the State is minimal and therefore does not allow for an in-depth evaluation of the impact such modifications may have in the search for a adequate balance between the rights of those on trial and the security of witnesses. In particular, it is not clear whether the use of such witnesses is exceptional or whether judicial authorities should make some individual determination regarding the need to resort to this mechanism as a last alternative and having the necessary reparative measures so as to not disproportionately affect the right to defense. With respect to Article 8.2(h) of the Convention, the IACHR observes that the State only questioned the report on the merits and did not furnish information regarding its compliance with the aforementioned recommendation aimed at adapting its legislation. Regarding the recommendation to "take measures of non-repetition, to eradicate the use of discriminatory prejudices based on ethnicity, on the exercise of public authority and, in particular, on the administration of justice," even though the State referred to some general measures, again questioned the findings of the background of the Commission, indicating that the Chilean authorities do not have discriminatory prejudices, because the Constitution prohibits it. The State indicated that the belonging of the victims "to the Mapuche ethnic group is not, in any respect, a circumstance to be considered from the criminal point of view." In this sense, the State stated that "criminal prosecution on these people, and some other members from the Mapuche people, is not based, in any case, animosity, on discrimination or racial prejudices present in the authorities, but in the fact that these people have committed acts which are in the nature criminal offenses and should be criminalizing as terrorists." Thus, the State did not provide accurate and sufficient information on the adoption of non-repetition measures recommended by the Commission. The Inter-American Commission submits all the facts and violations of human rights described in merits report 176/10 to the jurisdicition of the Court and requests that the Court conclude and declare that: 1. The State of Chile violated the principle of legality, recognized in Article 9 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations set forth in articles 1(1) and 2 thereof and 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. 2. The State of Chile violated the right to equal protection of the law and non-discrimination, recognized in Article 24 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations set forth in articles 1(1) and 2 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.