12 assert that consideranda 19 of the conviction is a verbatim copy of consideranda 10 in the verdict delivered by the oral criminal trial court on April 14, 2003, in the trial prosecuted against Pascual Pichún and Aniceto Norín. On this particular point, the petitioners’ contention is that an impartial court or tribunal has no bias or preconceived opinion regarding the case it is called upon to take up. “The bias and preconceived opinion of the tribunal that convicted us were so strong that the court simply copied a ruling it had delivered more than a year earlier, where it pointed out why, in its opinion, the matter under 40 investigation (setting fire to a home) was a terrorist act.” In the petitioners’ opinion, the Tribunal should have been forthcoming about its involvement in the earlier case and should have disqualified itself, as 41 required under the applicable legal code; by failing to do so, it violated the defendants’ right to a trial by 42 an impartial tribunal. . The petitioners report that on this basis, they filed a criminal complaint against the judges on the tribunal alleging the crime of prevarication, Register No. 257-2005 of the Angol Court 43 of Guarantees. Arguments on the violation of the right to an independent judge 33. The petitioners assert that their right to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal was violated by the fact that the Government became a complainant in the criminal case, in the form of the Malleco Governor’s Office and the Office of the Intendant of Region IX; they also point out that it is 44 the Government that decides which judges will be promoted to the appellate courts. The State 34. To counter the petitioners’ assertion to the effect that the Tribunal that handed down the conviction on September 27, 2003 was not impartial but rather came to the case with its own biases and assumed a priori that the accused were guilty, particularly in consideranda 15, subparagraph 1 of the judgment, the State explains that “the paragraph cited by the petitioner is simply an account of the facts established at trial based on the evidence offered and assessed directly by the judges and weighed on the basis of logic and the lessons learned from experience. (…) But the State also asserts that these 40 Original petition that Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Juan Ciríaco Millacheo Licán filed with the IACHR, April 13, 2005, p. 9. 41 The petitioners cite Article 195-8 of the Judiciary Statute: “The grounds for recusal are (…) 8. The judge expresses his/her opinion on the matter before the court with the background information necessary to pass judgment.” They also cite Article 200: “Recusal of judges can and should be declared ex officio or at the request of a party.” Original petition that Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Juan Ciríaco Millacheo Licán filed with the IACHR on August 13, 2005, p. 9. 42 “The tribunal that convicted us did not observe domestic or international law, and presided over a trial even though it was completely biased. // It is obvious that the tribunal had no doubt in its mind that the act for which we were standing trial qualified as terrorism, to the point that it failed to provide any reasoning for its verdict and instead copied from a ruling that it had delivered in another case in which Mapuche comuneros were also on trial.” Original petition that Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Juan Ciríaco Millacheo Licán filed with the IACHR on April 13, 2005, p. 10. Observations of Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Juan Ciríaco Millacheo Licán on the merits of the matter before the IACHR, received on August 9, 2007. 43 Original petition that Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Juan Ciríaco Millacheo Licán filed with the IACHR dated April 13, 2005, p. 10. 44 They explain that “from the beginning the government expressed an unmistakable interest in prosecuting and establishing the criminal culpability of the perpetrators by applying the Anti-Terrorism Act, a special piece of legislation that, at the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the private accusers, the government argued for. (…) It is the Government of Chile that appoints the ministers on the higher courts; hence, the State cannot guarantee the independence of the court if is also authorizing a regional government to become a complainant in the case. (…) The independence and impartiality of the courts can hardly be guaranteed if the complainant has the legal authority to decide whether the judges of the oral criminal trial court will be promoted to the rank of minister on a higher court. And if these same ministers must then decide a case under social pressure and influence, the bias and lack of independence that they would bring to a case is obvious (…) As this principle informs all government affairs, and as the government has made itself a party to the trials, any appearance of the court’s impartiality vanished and the principle of presumption of innocence, equality and nondiscrimination were violated, thereby undoing any pretense of an equality of arms before and during the criminal proceedings. The government’s participation in the trials, especially in the appeal to have the ruling vacated, has raised serious doubts about the objectivity and impartiality of the Chilean courts.” Observations of Aniceto Norín and Pascual Pichún on the merits of the matter before the IACHR, received on March 1, 2007, pp. 8-10.