Catrimán and Pichún Paillalao in the judgment with the guilty verdict in the Poluco Pidenco case. 191. CEJIL alleged the violation of the “right to equal protection […] in relation to the general obligation to respect rights” (Articles 24 and 1(1) of the Convention), and of judicial guarantees (Articles 8(1), 8(2)(c), 8(2)(d) and 8(5) of the Convention), to the detriment of Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe: a) Regarding the principles of equality and non-discrimination, it indicated that it “endorsed” the observations made in this regard by the Commission. Referring to the criminal proceedings against Mr. Ancalaf, it argued that “the existence of a discriminatory bias was evident during its processing,” and that his case “illustrated the State’s practice” of “selectively applying […] the anti-terrorist legislation against the members of the Mapuche people.” It argued that “[t]he stereotype of the Mapuche was revealed not only during the investigation [in the case of Mr. Ancalaf], but was also reflected in the judgments delivered by the domestic courts as a decisive element for convicting the Lonkos, the Werken and, in general, the Mapuche leaders and activists.” It affirmed that “[t]aking into account a person’s membership in an ethnic group and, on this basis, classifying an act as a terrorist action” without the “difference in treatment” being justified, constitutes “an act of racial discrimination.” It indicated that it was “the application of the Counter-terrorism Act that produced the discrimination and not the law in itself.” It argued that its application in Mr. Ancalaf’s case should “necessarily be understood in a context of the criminalization of the Mapuche people’s claims,” and that “different national and international bodies have recognized the existence of this context of discrimination.” It affirmed that the State “has used ‘ethnic origin’ as a criterion to establish differences between individuals, inasmuch as the selective application was addressed at the members of a specific ethnic group” without justification; b) With regard to these judicial guarantees, CEJIL argued that the criminal proceedings against Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe violated his guarantees contained in Article 8(1) (right to be heard by an impartial court and obligation to substantiate the accusation), 8(2)(c) (adequate means for the preparation of his defense), 8(2)(d) (right to be assisted by legal counsel of his own choosing) and 8(5) (the public nature of the proceedings) of the Convention, as well as the obligation established in Article 2 of this instrument. It set out the reasons why it considered that “the trial and subsequent conviction of Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe under a regime with inquisitorial characteristics – such as the one that was in force at the time of the events – resulted in a series of violations of the guarantees of due process.” Regarding the alleged violation of Article 8(1), in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, it argued that, under this regime, “[t]he structure and regulation” of this inquisitorial criminal system did not guarantee his right to be heard by an impartial judge or court, because “the charges were brought by a judicial decision of the judge who had headed the preliminary investigation and who then delivered the judgment.” It affirmed that, in the criminal proceedings against Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe, the judge who conducted the investigation, then presided the trial, and delivered the judgment convicting him. It also indicated that the Concepción Court of Appeal “failed to comply […] with the obligation to provide sufficient reasoning to safeguard the right [of Víctor Ancalaf] to due process,” because it decided that he had taken part in the facts and established his criminal responsibility for them “based above all on the testimony of anonymous witnesses.” The arguments of CEJIL with regard to the alleged violation of Article 8(2)(c) and 8(5), in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, refer to the confidentiality of the preliminary proceedings established in the former Code of Criminal Procedure and to the fact that all the proceedings in the trial were in writing. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 8(2)(d) in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, CEJIL stated that on the two occasion on which Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe made a statement before 67