of Resolution 1566 of the United Nations Security Council. It considered that it was an accepted fact that offenses defined in the ordinary criminal law, when committed concurrently with other elements or circumstances, constitute “a different and more serious offense, called terrorism.” It included considerations on the rights protected by the offense of terrorist arson, as well as on the wording “nature of the means and their effects,” and the “premeditated plan” used in the definition, and the difference from the definition of other criminal offenses. Chile affirmed that “[t]he principle of legality and the legal definition of an offense […] recognize that there are concepts that are subject to judicial interpretation, because it is impossible to legislate purely on a case-by-case basis,” but that this did not imply arbitrariness. It asserted that the “actual text” of article 1 of Law No. 18,314 “meets the requirements of international law as regards the legal definition of the acts and the punishment; thus, respecting the principle of legality.” In this regard, the State referred to the amendments made to the Counter-terrorism Act in 2010 concerning the presumption of terrorist intent and the applicability of the law to minors, and indicated that the elimination of the presumption of intent to instill fear was done in order “to protect the principle of the presumption of innocence […] so that […] any accusation of terrorism must be proved by whoever makes it and not, as before the legal amendment, that those accused of such offenses had to disprove the presumption of terrorist intent.” It added that the actual definition of terrorism in Chile respects the principle of legality and is more restrictive that in other countries and that the 2010 amendment of the Counter-terrorism Act entailed changes in punishments and the “elimination of presumptions,” but that the amendment was not due to failure to comply with international standards. It also indicated that “Chilean case law has progressed towards an interpretation of the Counter-terrorism Act that is completely in line with international standards [and that] the 2010 amendment merely reinforced [this].” It asserted also that the offense of terrorist arson “involves several offenses,” which means that the law protects “various rights, one of them the right to property, [in addition to] life and personal integrity.” B) Considerations of the Court 159. Before making a ruling, the Court recalls that, with regard to the criminal laws applied to the presumed victims in this case in the criminal proceedings to which they were subjected, Chile has defined terrorist offenses in a special law (Law No. 18,314 that “[d]efines terrorist acts and establishes their punishment”) (supra paras. 98 and 99). At the time of the acts they were accused of, this law included the following definitions: a) Article 1 of the law established aspects relating to the subjective element of the offense; in other words, the special terrorist intent (supra para. 98), and included a presumption of the intention of instilling fear in the general population when the act had been committed, inter alia, “by means of explosive or incendiary devices”; b) Article 2 established the objective element of the offense; that is the criminal acts or actions that, when perpetrated together with the said special intent or purpose, would be considered terrorist offenses (supra para. 98). In order to establish this objective element, article 2 contained: b.i) On the one hand, the first paragraph (article 2.1) established a specific list of ordinary offenses defined in the Criminal Code,163 including the offense of 163 “1. Acts of homicide penalized in articles 390 and 391; injury penalized in articles 395, 396, 397 and 399; abduction, either in the form of confinement or detention, or retention of a person as a hostage, and of the kidnapping of minors, penalized in articles 141 and 142; sending explosive devices penalized under article 403 bis; arson and destruction, penalized in articles 474, 475, 476 and 480; offenses against public health in articles 313(d), 315 and 316, and derailment established in articles 323, 324, 325 and 326, all of the Criminal Code”. 55