intent). In other words, these personal prejudices had a decisive impact on the analysis of the evidence of criminal responsibility. The facts described in the Judgment reveal that those judicial decisions were reached in a context in which the social media and segments of Chilean society had adopted unfavorable stereotypes and notions of what they called “the Mapuche question,” the “Mapuche problem” or the “Mapuche conflict” that delegitimized the land claims of the Mapuche indigenous people and, in general, classified their social protest as violent or presented it as a cause of conflict between the Mapuche indigenous people and the other inhabitants of the region.61 43. This reasoning set out by the courts in the judgments, which reflects the said context, proves that the judges based their decisions on prejudices against the defendants relating to their Mapuche indigenous ethnic origin and how the judges perceived their social protest to claim their rights. This confirms that it was reasonable for the defendants to have the impression that the courts that convicted them in the specific cases lacked impartiality when handing down the guilty verdicts. In the instant case, we are faced with a discriminatory difference in treatment that has no objective and reasonable justification, does not seek a legitimate purpose and, in addition, there is no proportionality between the means used and the end sought; all of which violates the due process protected by Article 8(1) of the American Convention. 44. In the context of dispensing justice, the discrimination against the eight victims in this case — who were discriminated against based on negative ethnic stereotypes and prejudices in relation to the Mapuche indigenous people and their territorial claims — represents a serious violation of due process, because it deprived them of an impartial judge. Thus, it is inconsistent that, having made a thorough analysis of the content of the verdicts in the criminal trials and having verified these discriminatory attitudes in the Judgment — by declaring the violation of Article 24 of the Pact of San José — the majority opinion of the Inter-American Court did not proceed to conclude that these same proven facts also entailed an autonomous violation of Article 8(1) of the American Convention. We therefore consider that the Court should not have subsumed this violation in the violation of the principle of legality and the right to the presumption of innocence established in Articles 9 and 8(2) of this instrument. 45. For these reasons, we consider that the Inter-American Court should have declared the international responsibility of the Chilean State, by considering that the right to an impartial judge or court, protected by Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, had been violated to the detriment of the victims in this case. Manuel E. Ventura Robles Judge 61 Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot Judge Cf. para. 93 of the Judgment. 18