37. The State also addressed the arguments brought forth by the petitioners regarding the September 27, 2003 decision issued by the Angol Criminal Trial Court, which acquits on some charges and convicts on others. The petitioners had alleged that the court violated due process and approached the case with prejudice by making an assumption of guilt regarding the defendants, as is evidenced in whereas clause 15 of the decision. In response, the State asserted that it is necessary to point out that the paragraph of the decision transcribed in the petition does nothing more than relate the facts that were established during the trial based on the evidence rendered, which was assessed by the judges directly and assessed according to logic and the maxims of experience. The State added that the evidence presented at the trial was given with due guarantees of immediacy, publicity, and cross examination, with all the rights that the system offers to defendants. The defense was safeguarded and led by six attorneys, four of whom are part of the Criminal Public Defender’s Service and paid by the Chilean government. 38. As to the petitioners’ argument that whereas clause 15 of the judgment in question changed the burden of proof, the State asserted that the petition is once again mistaken when it takes the acts described therein to be attributed directly to the defendants. Those facts, taken by the court as proven, were included as part of the unquestionable context in which the events took place which led to the charges and ultimate convictions of Mr. Norín and Mr. Pichún, once their involvement was proven beyond all reasonable doubt. 39. Furthermore, the state rejected the petitioners’ accusation that the judgment infringed on the presumption of innocence because the defendants were charged with criminal involvement on the basis of facts that were not convincingly established. The petitioners’ assertion is based on the use of the Spanish conditional tense in whereas clause 15(6): “according to the testimony of Osvaldo Carvajal, both defendants are purported to belong to the Arauco malleco C.A.M. Coordination group, an organization which in fact, as was reiterated, is violent in nature.”23 The State asserted that Mr. Norín and Mr. Pichún were not judged on whether or not they belonged to a certain group, but rather whether they had carried out certain acts; to wit: making terrorist threats. After examining all of the evidence, the court became convinced that the defendants had perpetrated these crimes. According to the State, this was apparent from the petitioner’s own submission because nowhere did it indicate that the violation of this fundamental right took place with regard to these acts, the threats. The petitioner merely alleged infringement on the presumption of innocence with regard to secondary matters which were mentioned by the judge drafting the decision in order to give context to the specific charges. 40. The State also addressed the charge by the petitioners that paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of whereas clause 15 infringed on the principle of personal criminal liability, whereby liability cannot be extended to another person or persons who were not involved in the commission of the crime. The State alleged that showing that the defendants were lonkos in their respective communities is simply another fact that is certainly relevant, given the way and context in which the threats occurred. However, asserted the State, their guilt was not determined by being lonkos, but rather by the direct and indirect evidence indicating that they had made the threats. 41. The State asserted that the petitioners were also mistaken when they argued that mention of the defendants’ prior convictions was considered to establish their involvement in the crime under investigation. This was merely an undisputed fact that may be relevant for determining the sentence according to the rules of Chilean criminal law. 42. The State said that the petitioners were also mistaken when they questioned the verdict for indicating that the Mapuche communities of Diádico and Temulemu are adjacent to the Nancahue tree farm. This is a real, factual circumstance that was legally established. 23 Judgment issued by the judges of the Retrial Court of the Angol Criminal Trial Courthouse of September 27, 2003. Whereas clause 15 (6). 8