13 facts are public and notorious facts in the regional and national community, as the members of these groups have broadcast their territorial claims and their methods and at the same time have announced these acts and claimed authorship. // There is no basis, therefore, to claim that the tribunal (…) is prejudging when it analyzes the evidence offered and puts the facts into context based on the evidence. (…) In the preamble of its judgment, the court naturally had to describe the context in which these crimes were committed, which is nothing more than the uncontestable conclusion drawn from the evidence 45 offered at trial.” 35. As for the argument made by petitioners Pascual Pichún and Aniceto Norín concerning the oral criminal trial court’s lack of jurisdiction under the rules in force at the time the acts in the case were committed, the State maintains that the such an assertion is the product of a biased and skewed interpretation of the rules governing the Chilean courts’ jurisdiction. The State contends that that interpretation has been fabricated to arrive at one conclusion, which is that at the time of the commission 46 of the crimes, the law did not specify which tribunal had jurisdiction to prosecute the crimes. The State elaborates by saying that this criminal case was not instituted at the behest of or as a result of a complaint brought by the Regional Intendant or Provincial Governor; it was brought on the basis of a complaint that the victims themselves filed with the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and which they joined as private accusers. F. The right to appeal a judgment to a higher court or judge The petitioners 36. Petitioners Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Juan Ciríaco Millacheo Licán, 45 46 Response from the Chilean State to Petition P-619-03, received by the IACHR on November 30, 2004, pp. 8-9. The State explains that the petitioners base their arguments on Article 10 of Law 18,314, before it was amended by Law 19,806. It goes on to assert that in this case, complaints were brought by the Office of the Regional Intendant and by the Provincial Government of Malleco; from that one can infer that the competent organ would be a minister on the Temuco Appellate Court. However, “by that reading, the petitioners are disregarding and attribute no application or efficacy to the entire body of organic and procedural law that entered into force in Region IX as of December 16, 2000, a body of law that includes the constitutional amendment introduced with Law No. 19,519, Law No. 19,640 Constitutional Organic Statute of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and Laws No. 19,665 and 19,708 which, while supplementing the existing legal texts, introduced the corresponding amendments in the Judiciary Statute. // Particular mention should be made of the amendments that Article 11 of Law No. 19,665 introduced in Article 50 of the Judiciary Statute. Under that amendment, no single minister of the appellate court, functioning as a single-person court, has competence in criminal matters. // Under the terms of transitory constitutional provision number 36, the constitutional amendment introduced by Law No. 19,519 begins to take effect when the Organic Constitutional Law of the Public Prosecutor’s Office enters into force, paragraph two of which expressly states that the body of legal texts that, taken together, form the so-called criminal procedural reform, shall apply exclusively to events that transpire subsequent to the date on which it enters into force. // Lastly, in keeping with that constitutional provision, transitory Article 4 of the Organic Constitutional Act of the Public Prosecutor’s Office set December 16, 2000, as the date on which the provisions of Law No. 19,519 and of Law No. 19,640 would take effect for region IX. That provision is reiterated in transitory Article 7 of Law No. 19,665 and in Article 484 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. // Then, effective December 16, 2000, the procedural rules that predated the entry into force of the laws governing the new criminal procedure system can no longer be said to be in effect in Region IX, as the competence and authorities in the investigation and prosecution of crimes of the jurisdictional bodies under the old system shall be tacitly and organically repealed with the entry into force of the new legal texts mentioned previously. // One provision of Law No. 19,665 specifically concerned ministers of the appellate court functioning as a single-judge courts. That law amended Article 50 of the Judiciary Statute so that those single-judge courts no longer had jurisdiction with respect to the investigation and prosecution of crimes committed as of the date on which the law took effect. // In Region IX, the new criminal procedure system, and thus the entire body of law we have herein described, entered into force on December 16, 2000, whereas the facts under investigation and prosecuted by virtue of the judgment being objected to occurred on December 16 and 17, 2001, in other words, one year after the new system of criminal prosecution took effect. Hence, one cannot claim that the investigation and prosecution of those events should have been done according to the old system of criminal procedure. // This follows from the fact that the legal texts in question are of a higher legal order, in particular Constitutional Amendment Act No. 19,519 and Law No. 19,640 the Constitutional Organic Statute of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. It also follows from a systematic and balanced interpretation of the body of law governing criminal procedure.// These considerations notwithstanding, in May 2002 Law No. 19, 806 was passed amending the text of Article 10 of Law No. 18,314, to adapt it to fit the new system of criminal prosecution. Clearly, lawmakers have not hesitated to introduce amendments in the law to make the necessary adjustments once it enters into force; yet even before these amendments take effect, legal practitioners wield the tools of interpretation that the legal system affords them to correctly discern and apply the provisions of the law so as to keep them in balance.” Response the Chilean State to Petition P-619-03 received by the IACHR on November 30, 2004, pp. 16-17.