of this instrument, and that the petitions were admissible as they met the requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention.5 c) Merits Report. Pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention, on November 5, 2010, the Commission issued Merits Report No. 176/10 (hereinafter also “the Merits Report” or “Report No. 176/10”),6 in which it reached a series of conclusions and made several recommendations to Chile:  Conclusions. The Commission concluded that the State was responsible for the violation of the following rights recognized in the American Convention: (i) “the principle of legality recognized in Article 9 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations set forth in Articles1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of [the eight presumed victims in this case]”; (ii) “the right to equal protection of the law and non-discrimination recognized in Article 24 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of [the eight presumed victims in this case]”; (iii) “the right to freedom of expression and political rights established in Articles 13 and 23 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of [the eight presumed victims in this case]”; (iv) “the principle of individual criminal responsibility and the presumption of innocence under Articles 8(1), 8(2) and 9 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of [the eight presumed victims in this case]”; (v) “the right of defense of Lonkos Aniceto Norín and Pascual Pichún, and of Werken Víctor Ancalaf, specifically their right to question the witnesses present in the court, in keeping with Article 8(2)(f) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations set forth in Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument”; (vi) “the right to appeal a judgment recognized in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations set forth in Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of [the eight presumed victims in this case]”;7 (vii) “the right to an impartial judge recognized in Article 8(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of [the eight presumed victims in this case],” and viii) “the violations of the human rights recognized in Articles 8, 9, 24, 13 and 23 had a resulting impact on the socio-cultural integrity of the Mapuche people as a whole.” In addition, the Commission established that “Chile did not violate the rights to a competent and independent judge or the principle of non bis in idem, recognized in Article 8(1) and 8(4) [of the American Convention] respectively.” The Commission determined that the presumed victims were the following eight persons: Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles and Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe.  Recommendations. The Commission made the following recommendations to the State: (i) “Eliminate the effects of the terrorism convictions imposed on [the eight presumed victims in this case]”; (ii) “If the [presumed] victims so choose, they shall have the opportunity to have their convictions reviewed in a proceeding conducted in accordance with the principle of legality, the prohibition of discrimination and the guarantees of due process, in the terms described in th[e Merits] report”; 5 Cf. Admissibility Report No. 89/06 (Petition 619-03), Aniceto Norín Catrimán and Pascual Pichún Paillalao v. Chile, October 21 2006; Admissibility Report No. 32/07 (Petition 429-05), Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia et al. v. Chile, May 2, 2007, and Admissibility Report No. 33/07 (Petition 581-05), Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe v. Chile, May 2, 2007 (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, appendix 1, folios 629 to 646, 1608 to 1620 and 2337 to 2349). 6 Cf. Merits Report No. 176/10, supra nota 4 (merits file, tome I, folios 9 to 109). 7 In a brief of August 16, 2013, the Commission clarified that “in its Merits Report, it had analyzed the application of articles 373 and 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, establishing that this had violated the right to appeal the judgment. In this regard, since these articles were not applied to Mr. Ancalaf [Llaupe] , the conclusion in the Merits Report should be understood with regard to the other victims in the case” (merits file, tome IV, folio 2285). 5