matters of fact, something not within the appeals court’s scope of jurisdiction. For this reason, the petitioners contend, they were prevented from appealing the decision. 22. Regarding Article 8(1) of the American Convention, the petitioners argue that they were deprived of their right to be tried by an impartial court: this right was violated because the court copied into its decision a prior judgment handed down against other Mapuche residents of the same territorial zone. The context within which the copied judgment was issued, the petitioners contend, was the so-called “Mapuche conflict.” They moreover state that the part of the decision referring to terrorist arson as the subject matter of the case is an exact, full copy of the judgment handed down by the same court, more than a year before, against Messrs. and Mme. Pascual Pichún, Aniceto Norin Catriman and Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles. The petitioners argue that this shows that the judges had a preconceived opinion on the merits of the issue submitted for their decision. 23. The petitioners claim that the State of Chile violated Article 8(2) of the American Convention. They affirm that the judgment against them is rife with infractions of this right, holding them responsible for actions carried out by different individuals. The petitioners point out that the State’s reasoning regarding their participation in the crime of arson and its terrorist character goes thus: It is public knowledge that during the year 2001 some persons linked with or belonging to the Mapuche ethnic group, preferring the use of violent methods to satisfy their demands and territorial claims, attacked persons, property, facilities, vehicles, and machinery, belonging to individuals and businesses located in different geographic sectors of the province of Malleco, with negative consequences for public safety and peace, for the physical integrity of the citizens and for the progress and development of the zone. The fire on the Poluco Podenco farm falls within the dynamics of this conflict .4 24. According to the petitioners, the nineteenth whereas clause of the judgment 5 asserts that “the unlawful act established in these considerations is part of a wider process of the Mapuche people’s recovery of land, which has taken place outside the law”…“these actions can be synthesized as the posing of excessive claims under the pressure of violent groups.” 6 The petitioners argue that a practical consequence of the application of this reasoning has been their sentencing to more than 5 years of imprisonment over what they would have received had common criminal law been applied to them, and not law applicable to terrorist conduct. The petitioners further argue that this violation of the principio de culpabilidad[judicial duty to establish guilt] is a recurrent theme in the trials of Mapuche indigenous people. 25. Regarding Articles 1(1) and 24 of the American Convention, the petitioners note that the principle of equal protection and non discrimination, which is also established by the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which have been ratified by Chile, and in article 19, No. 2 of the Constitution of Chile. 26. In this respect, the petitioners contend that Article 1(1) and 24 of the American Convention have been violated because during the trial paid witnesses were used solely because the defendants were Mapuche indigenous people; and that the antiterrorist law (Law 18.314) was improperly used, as were diverse measures for protection of the witnesses, which in practice amounted to nothing but a spurious form of obtaining testimony against them. The petitioners assert that this violates the principle of equal protection, because “we all have the right to equal treatment on the part of the state, and if the situation was one of facing a criminal indictment we had the right to a trial under normal conditions and that these conditions not be altered bearing in mind our racial origin.” 4 Whereas clause No. 4 of the judgment handed down by the Oral Trial Court of Angol. Cited by the petitioners in an April 13, 2005 communication. 5 Cited by the petitioners in an April 13, 2005 communication. 6 Cited by the petitioners in an April 13, 2005 communication. 4