396. In this regard, expert witness Vargas Forman, who gave her expert psycho-social opinions by affidavit, noted that “[t]he application of the Counter-terrorism Act is perceived as an extreme indication of discriminatory persecution [against the Mapuche] that concluded with long sentences, imprisonment and significant losses at the individual, family and community level.” She also stated that the prison terms had a considerable impact on the presumed victims at both the personal level and in relation to their family and community.389 397. In addition, the presumed victims referred to the difficulties resulting from their criminal record and branding as “terrorists” in their reincorporation into society after serving their sentences, especially in the search for work.390 398. The presumed victims also referred to the personal changes, the suffering and other consequences of the time spent in prison. For example, the psychological report records that Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe stated that “[a]ll the problems have arisen due to the imprisonment; I realize that one changes.”391 Also, Mr. Huenchunao Mariñán stated that “imprisonment is a harsh punishment, when one is convicted because of social protest, considering it a criminal act.”392 The Court understands that this refers to consequences of the deprivation of liberty or collateral effects (supra para. 391). 399. There is evidence in the case file, including the statements made by presumed victims, complemented by helpful evidence presented by the State, that Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán and Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles were progressively granted certain “prison benefits” while serving their sentences, such as “Sunday release,” “weekend release” and “supervised release,” and also that some of them benefited from a remission of sentence (supra paras. 119, 129 to 132 and 152). The Court assesses positively that the State implemented this type of measures; however, it does not eliminate the human rights violations that the Court has determined in other parts of this Judgment. 400. The Court understands the harm that the deprivation of liberty may have caused to the presumed victims, but considers that there has not been an autonomous violation of Article 5(1) of the American Convention. As indicated, this harm was the consequences of the deprivation of liberty or the collateral effects (supra para. 391). 4. 401. Right to the protection of the family Article 17(1) of the American Convention establishes the following: Article 17 Rights of the Family State. 1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the 389 Cf. Affidavit prepared on May 15, 2013, by expert witness Ruth Vargas Forman (file of statements of the presumed victims, witnesses and expert witnesses, folios 372 and 390). 390 Cf. Affidavit prepared on May 17, 2013, by presumed victim Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia; written statement made on May 27, 2013, by presumed victim Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles (file of statements of presumed victims, witnesses and expert witnesses, folios 193 and 658), and statement made by presumed victim Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing held on May 29 and 30, 2013. 391 Cf. Psychological and psychosocial report on presumed victim Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe and his family, prepared by expert witness Ruth Vargas Forman (file of statements of the presumed victims, witnesses and expert witnesses, folio 96). 392 Cf. Affidavit prepared on May 17, 2013, by presumed victim José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán (file of statements of presumed victims, witnesses and expert witnesses, folio 205). 133