15. They also state that the principle of proportionality and consequently the right to equality and non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 1 and 24 of the American Convention was violated, because the courts handed down a conviction for the alleged terrorism offense without proper appreciation and discernment regarding the legal nature and actual seriousness of the alleged act, by indiscriminately applying antiterrorist legislation. 16. The petitioners also affirm that there has been a violation of the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence as enshrined in Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention, in that the conviction was handed down on the basis of insufficient evidence and the evidentiary methods used in the criminal proceeding against Mr. Víctor Ancalaf. They argue that according to the system for evaluating reasonable judgment, the law applicable to the case required assessing the evidence according to the stricter system of legal evidence. 17. The petitioners state that the actions of which Mr. Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe is accused cannot be understood without reference to the construction of the Ralco Hydroelectric Plant, which led to the complaint submitted to the Inter-American Commission, 7 in which a friendly settlement was reached that, according to the petitioners, has not yet been implemented by the State of Chile. 18. Further, the petitioners state that the actions attributed to Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe occurred during the construction of the Ralco Hydroelectric Plant, in Mapuche-Pehuenche territory, and that his relationship to the Ralco Hydroelectric Plant was expressly indicated in Friendly Settlement Report N° 30/04 of the Inter-American Commission. 8 19. With respect to the State’s argument that the complaint was not filed in a timely manner, the petitioners9 stipulate that the deadline for submitting the complaint to the Commission was May 22, 2005, and the complaint was submitted on May 20, 2005. 20. In its observations brief dated December 30, 2005, the petitioners clarify the point that the victim of the human rights violations being claimed is Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe, and that the attorneys as well as the 69 Mapuche who sign the complaint do so as petitioners. 10 B. The State 21. The State argues in its observations that the petition is inadmissible because it was not submitted within the required time period and because it does not relate events that constitute a violation of the American Convention, in that it refers to the indictment, prosecution and conviction of Mr. Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe for a terrorist offense. 7 IACHR, Report N° 30/04. Petition 4617/02. Friendly Settlement, Mercedes Julia Heunteao Beroiza et al., Chile. 8 In that report the IACHR expresses the following: The State of Chile shall seek to ensure strict observance with the rules of due process guaranteed in Article 8 (rights to a fair trial) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and underscores that it has a duty to ensure that the accused enjoys all of his rights under the Constitution and the law. (2) Once final judgments have been delivered in the lawsuits in which Mr. Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe is currently under prosecution or has been sentenced, in the event those judgments entail prison terms, the Government of Chile undertakes to study the application of all the instruments that the law provides to invoke the benefits guaranteed to all persons deprived of liberty by decision of the courts, and furthermore, to examine the adoption of the appropriate measures applicable to his case. (3) At the request of the petitioning Mapuche Pehuenche families, the Government of Chile expresses its disposition to seek, via the appropriate legal and administrative procedures, to procure humanitarian assistance on behalf of the family of Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe.” IACHR, Report N° 30/04. Petition 4617/02. Friendly Settlement, Mercedes Julia Heunteao Beroiza et al., Chile. 9 On December 30, 2005, the petitioners submitted their observations regarding the State’s brief. 10 “The petitioners in the complaint, who include 69 Mapuche leaders, non-indigenous attorneys and a member of the Aymara people is one thing, and the victim of the human rights violation, Víctor Ancalaf, is something quite different. The observation that 69 Mapuche leaders who signed the petition are in a position of being threatened given the repeated application of antiterrorist legislation against the members of this people is information that we want the Commission to take into account.” Petitioners’ brief dated December 30, 2005. 4