Expert witness Carlos del Valle Rojas, proposed by the FIDH, analyzed the “juridical-judicial discourse” in order to determine the possible “existence of stereotypes, prejudices and discrimination in the criminal judgments” against the presumed victims in this case. In this regard, the expert witness concluded that the judgments “used discursive terms the judgmental, moral and/or political weight of which denotes the acceptance and reproduction of stereotypes that include strong social and cultural prejudices against the Mapuche communities and negative elements in favor of the prosecution.” The expert witness indicated that “a significant part of the legal arguments” of these judicial decisions reveals “stereotypes and prejudices that reflect negatively on these communities, […] even though this is not revealed by the facts proved during the proceedings.” He also affirmed that “different parts of the judgments […] use arguments that discriminate against the Mapuche communities” and that, “on various occasions, legal decisions that prejudice Mapuche leaders or community members are substantiated by a series of reasonings that, in turn, are supported by discriminatory terms, stereotypes or preconceived prejudices, in relation to the case examined.” The expert witness analyzed different extracts from the domestic judgments that he considered “reveal” this “assimilation of stereotypes and prejudices and the recurrent use of discriminatory reasoning” by the domestic courts. 226. In order to establish whether a difference in treatment is based on a suspect category and to determine whether this constituted discrimination, it is necessary to examine the arguments adduced by the domestic judicial authorities, their actions, the language used, and the context in which th judicial decisions were handed down.251 227. The following are among the terms that the Commission and the common interveners of the representatives indicated, in particular, as being discriminatory and, with some variations, they appear in the different judgments: “[…] the actions that resulted in these wrongful acts reveal that the form, methods and strategies used had the criminal purpose of causing a generalized state of fear in the region. The said wrongful acts are inserted in a process of recovery of Mapuche lands carried out committing acts of violence, without respecting the legal and institutional order, resorting to the use of force, planned, coordinated and prepared in advance by radicalized groups that seek to create a climate of insecurity, instability and fear in different sectors of Regions XIII and IX. These actions can be summarized in the formulation of excessive demands, made under pressure by belligerent groups to the owners and proprietors, who are warned that they will suffer different consequences if they do not accede to the groups’ demands. Many of these threats have materialized in the forms of attacks on physical integrity, robberies, theft, arson, vandalism and occupation of land, which have affected both the personnel and the property of various owners of agricultural properties and logging companies in this part of the country. The objective is to instill in the population a justified fear of falling victim to similar attacks and, thereby, to force the owners to cease any further exploitation of their properties and, ultimately, to force them to abandon their properties. The feeling of insecurity and unease that these attacks cause has led to a decrease in the availability of labor and an increase in its cost, an increase in costs and loans both for hiring machinery for exploiting the properties and in the cost of policies to insure the land, the installations and the crops. Furthermore, it is increasingly common to see workers, machinery, vehicles and operations on the different properties under police protection to safeguard operations, all of which affects rights protected by the Constitution. The foregoing is revealed by – although not necessarily with the same characteristics – the corroborating testimonies of Juan and Julio Sagredo Marín, Miguel Ángel Sagredo Vidal, Mauricio Chaparro Melo, Raúl Arnoldo Forcael Silva, Juan Agustín Figueroa Elgueta, Juan Agustín Figueroa Yávar, Armín Enrique Stappung Schwarzlose, Jorge Pablo Luchsinger Villiger, Osvaldo Moisés Carvajal Rondanelli, Gerardo Jequier Shalhlí and Antonio Arnoldo Boisier Cruces, who stated that they had been direct victims or knew of threats and attacks against individuals or property perpetrated by individuals belonging to the Mapuche ethnic group, witnesses who expressed in different ways the feeling of fear that these acts caused them. The foregoing is related to the words of expert witness José Muñoz Maulen, who stated that he had backed up on a compact disc information from his computer obtained 251 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, para. 95. 79