30 93. In its reasoning, the Court examined the arguments made by the attorneys representing the defendants concerning the alleged terrorist nature of the crimes with which their clients were charged. The Court held that that the offenses were crimes under Law 18,314, and wrote the following: As for the defense’s argument that these facts do not constitute terrorist crimes, the statements alluded to in the previous comments, which come from persons who were directly associated with the facts of this case or who came to learn of them for a variety of reasons, are testimony that is consistent with the expert reports and documentary evidence that the accusers introduced during the hearing and that constitute background information that, taken together and after being duly examined, leads these judges to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the fire that burned the Poluco-Pidenco tree farm on December 19, 2001, was a terrorist act, inasmuch as the actions committed on that occasion reveal that the form, methods and strategies employed had a malicious intent, which was to cause widespread fear within the area, a situation that is a public and notorious fact that these judges cannot ignore; this is a serious conflict between a portion of the Mapuche ethnic group and the rest of the population, a fact neither argued by the parties nor unknown to them. In effect, the crime established in Consideranda 16 must be viewed against the backdrop of a process of recovering Mapuche lands, in which the perpetrators took direct action, without respecting the existing legal and institutional order and by recourse to the use of force through measures that were planned, agreed and prepared in advance by radicalized groups that seek to create a climate of insecurity, instability and fear in the Province of Malleco, as most of the events and the most violent have happened in districts [comunas] in that province. These measures can be summarized as follows: excessive demands that violent groups make of owners and landholders, under pressure and warning them of the various consequences they will face if they do not give in to the demands. Many of these threats have materialized in the form of felonious assaults, robberies, theft, arson, vandalism and usurpation, which have affected both the persons and property of various farmers and tree farmers in this part of the country; in the oral proceedings the court heard numerous pieces of testimony and learned some of the background to this situation, even though that information is public knowledge. The obvious inference is that the objective is to instill in the population a well-founded fear of falling victim to similar crimes, and thereby force the owners to cease any further exploitation of their properties and ultimately to force them to abandon their properties. The sense of insecurity and uneasiness that these attacks cause have consequences, such as driving off the workforce or increasing the cost of labor, increasing the costs of both leasing farm equipment and the cost of insuring the properties, the buildings and the crops. It is becoming more and more common to see workers, machinery, vehicles and work set up on the various properties under police protection, to ensure that the work can get done. All this affects constitutionally protected rights. The Court’s conclusion follows from the testimony given by César Gutiérrez Chávez, Ricardo Martín Ruff, Víctor Luengo San Martín, Gerardo Cerda Agurto, Juan Zapata Acuña, Mario Garbarini Barra, Gerardo Jequier Schalchi, Manuel Riesco Jaramillo, René Araneda Amigo, Juan Correa Búlnes, Jorge Vives Dibarrat and Julio Piwonka de Amesti, all of whom told the court that they were immediate victims or had knowledge of threats and assaults on persons or property, perpetrated by persons of Mapuche origin. Albeit in different ways, these witnesses all expressed the sense of fear that those acts instilled in them. This background information is in the report of the session of the Senate Commission on the Constitution, Legislation, Justice and Regulations. 110 Paragraphs from that report were read during the hearing. 94. Based on these considerations, the Oral Criminal Trial Court convicted the accused of the crime of terrorist arson and sentenced them to ten years and one day imprisonment and payment of compensatory damages for the damage done to the property in question. 110 Verdict of the Angol oral criminal trial court, August 22, 2004, Consideranda 19. Attached to the 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.