34 the construction of the Ralco Power Plant that will serve Alto Bío Bío, all for the purpose of forcing the authorities to make decisions that will slow or stop the construction work.”122 106. After summarizing the statements made by Víctor Ancalaf to the effect that he was not at the scene of these events, the Court outlined the evidence that, in its view, proved the defendant’s guilt as an author of the attack and concluded that “the evidence described above establishes legal presumptions that, after careful study, constitute full proof against Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe and prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was directly and immediately involved as the author of the crime established in Consideranda 17, i.e., the terrorist crime provided for in Article 2(4) of Law No. 18,314, in relation to Article 1 thereof, committed in the Alto Bío Bio sector on March 17, 2002.” 123 2. The appeal filed to challenge the conviction and the decision by the Concepción Appeals Court 107. On January 3, 2004, Víctor Ancalaf filed an appeal to challenge his conviction. The appeal was decided by a second instance ruling delivered on June 4, 2004, which amended the judgment that the petitioner was appealing and held that his involvement in the events of September 29, 2001 had not been proven, nor had his involvement in the events on March 3, 2002; the ruling upheld his conviction as one of the authors of the attack on March 17, 2002, and he was sentenced to five years 124 and one day, as well as accessory penalties. 108. He then filed a motion of cassation seeking nullification of the verdict on the grounds of an error of law, and a complaint requesting that the conviction be invalidated on the grounds of a miscarriage or serious miscarriage of justice in the adoption of the decision. The motion of cassation was declared inadmissible on August 2, 2004. The complaint was heard but denied on November 22, 2004, on the grounds that the judges had not committed a miscarriage or serious miscarriage of 125 justice. IV. THE LAW 109. Based on the relevant provisions of the American Convention, the Commission will now examine the parties’ allegations and the facts taken as proven, in the following order: i) The principle of legality and the terrorist crimes of which the alleged victims were charged and convicted; ii) The verdicts in light of the right to equality before the law and the right to nondiscrimination, iii) The right to maintain cultural integrity; iv) Freedom of expression and political rights; and v) The principle of individual criminal liability and the right to judicial guarantees. A. 110. The principle of legality and the terrorist crimes of which the alleged victims were charged and convicted (Article 9 of the Convention in relation to articles 1(1) and 2 thereof) Article 9 of the American Convention provides that: No one shall be convicted of any act or omission that did not constitute a criminal offense, under the applicable law, at the time it was committed. A heavier penalty shall not be imposed than the 122 Conviction handed down by the Concepción Appeals Court on December 30, 2003. Supplied to the IACHR together with the record of the criminal case that the Chilean State prosecuted against Víctor Ancalaf on February 27, 2008. Consideranda 15. 123 Conviction handed down by the Concepción Appeals Court on December 30, 2003. Supplied to the IACHR together with the record of the criminal case that the Chilean State prosecuted against Víctor Ancalaf on February 27, 2008. Consideranda 18. 124 Original petition that Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe, 69 authorities, leaders and members of the Mapuche indigenous people and three attorneys filed with the IACHR, received on May 20, 2005. Not contested by the State. 125 Original petition that Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe, 69 authorities, leaders and members of the Mapuche indigenous people and three attorneys filed with the IACHR, received May 20, 2005. Not contested by the State.