11 30. The petitioners also assert that “what happened in the present case is the situation provided for in subparagraph 3, cited above, inasmuch as the Provincial Governor of Malleco filed a complaint in this matter. Therefore, under this subparagraph we are required to apply the rules on Jurisdiction and Procedure set forth in the State Security Act. Under Article 26 of that Act, any minister on the respective court of appeals has jurisdiction. // The consequence is obvious: a Trial Court does not have jurisdiction. However, no minister on the appeals court has jurisdiction either because Article 50 No. 1 of the Judiciary Statute was repealed by Law 19,665. // My client is not to blame for the fact that no tribunal has competence to take cognizance of a terrorist crime that occurred after Law 19,665 (which struck down Article 50 No. 1 of the Judiciary Statute) took effect but before Law 19,806 (Ley 36 Adecuatoria) entered into force, which is when the Provincial Government brought its complaint.” This argument is discussed at greater length in the petitioners’ submissions on the matter before the 37 IACHR. Arguments on the violation of the right to an impartial judge 31. Petitioners Pascual Pichún and Aniceto Norín allege that Article 8(1) of the American Convention, which recognizes the right to an independent and impartial judge, was violated by the fact that the Trial Court regarded the existence and operations of violent unlawful organizations in Region IX 38 to be an obvious and notorious fact. 32. Petitioners Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Juan Ciríaco Millacheo Licán, argued that their right under Article 8(1) of the Convention to a hearing by an impartial court, had been violated by the fact that an excerpt from the verdict of conviction that the oral criminal trial court delivered in their case is textually identical to a judgment delivered by the same Tribunal in another criminal case against 39 other Mapuche comuneros –specifically the reasoning as to why the facts constituted terrorism. They 36 Communication that attorney Rodrigo Lillo Vera sent to the IACHR on behalf of Aniceto Norín, received on December 23, 2003, p. 11. 37 They explain that the jurisdiction to hear the facts in this case was assigned to the oral criminal trial court purely on the basis of the amendment that Law 19,806 of May 31, 2002 (Ley Adecuatoria) introduced in the Anti-Terrorism Act; “based on the foregoing, the tribunal or court that had jurisdiction at the time the acts were committed, and as Article 10 of the Anti-Terrorism Act prescribes, was a minister of the court, i.e., a visiting minister to serve as a special presiding judge by virtue of the subject matter and the nature of the intervening parties; the court with jurisdiction was not the oral criminal trial court that in the end decided the case. Nevertheless, at the time of the events, Article 11 of Law 19,665 had repealed Article 50(1) of the Judiciary Statute, which provided that a visiting minister should preside. This meant that in the instant case, no court had jurisdiction if a case was the result of a complaint filed by the Ministry of the Interior, the Governor or the Intendant.” Observations of Aniceto Norín and Pascual Pichún on the merits of the matter before the IACHR, received on March 1, 2007, pp. 2-3. Later, in response to the Government’s argument to the effect that this allegation was the result of a misreading of domestic law, the petitioners observed that “[i]t has never been our contention that at the time the crimes were committed, no court had jurisdiction and therefore competence to take up the case; instead, our position was that no court was competent if, and only if, the government became a party through the Ministry of the Interior, a provincial governor or regional intendant, which is precisely what happened (now, since the legal adjustments, a court does have jurisdiction.). // It has never been our contention that the facts ought to be tried by the old system of criminal procedure; instead, we are simply arguing that the Government of Chile cannot make itself a complainant in the case because, were that the case, no court would be competent.” Observations of Aniceto Norín to the State’s response to the original transmission of Petition P619-03, received on September 7, 2005, p. 2. 38 “The ruling that convicted the lonkos is an obvious manifestation of the violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention, which recognizes the fundamental right to independent and impartial judges. Particularly disturbing was the part of the judgment that states the following: “It is a public and notorious fact …’(…) An independent and impartial tribunal cannot declare it to be a public and notorious fact that organizations exist in Chile, especially in the region of the Araucania, that assert their territorial claims by committing acts of violence and inciting such acts. This statement by the court is nothing more than a demonstration of its bias and of the influence of the press. It is not a public and notorious fact; it is a fact that must be proved. However, that was not done. And as we shall see, it has already been proven in court that such was not the case.” Observations of Aniceto Norín and Pascual Pichún on the merits of the matter before the IACHR, received on March 1, 2007, p. 8. 39 “This right was violated because the court copied into its decision a prior judgment handed down against other Mapuche residents of the same territorial zone, in the context of the so-called “Mapuche conflict.” The part of the decision handed down against us that refers to terrorist arson as the crime being prosecuted is an exact copy, to the letter, of the ruling that the same court delivered in the case against don Pascual Pichún Paillalao, Aniceto Norín Catrimán and Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles.” 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.