44 legality was somehow violated by a simple abbreviation of the name of the crime of threatening terrorist arson. 148. Given the scope of this report’s conclusions and recommendations, the Commission must make some reference to the progress recently made in Chilean law. The Commission notes that Chile’s National Congress approved Law 20,467, which amends some provisions of Law 18,314. The following are among the principal changes that Law 20,467 introduced: 1) in Article 1, the definition of terrorist crimes was changed so that a common crime would become a terrorist offense when committed for the purpose of instilling in the population or a portion thereof a well-founded fear of becoming the victim of similar crimes, an end that will be inferred alternatively from three factors: (a) the nature and effects of the means employed, (b) evidence that the offense is part of a premeditated plan to attack a category or group of persons, or (c) the offense is committed to undo or frustrate the decisions of the 170 authorities or to make demands upon them; (2) the presumption of terrorist intent based on the means used, previously stipulated in Article 1(1) of Law 18,314, was dropped; (3) clarification was introduced to the effect that common crimes shall be regarded as terrorists offenses, not when “any” of the conditions 171 established in Article 1 is present but rather “when the conditions [therein] specified are present”; (4) in Article 2, the list of common crimes that can become terrorist offenses was changed. Here, the Commission notes that (a) the list still includes the crimes of fire and vandalism, and (b) in item 4 on the list, which concerns the placement, launching, or shooting of bombs, explosives or incendiary devices,” 172 the phrase “that affect or could affect personal safety or cause harm” was dropped; and (5) in Article 7, the penalty for an attempt or threat to commit terrorist offenses was modified and the corresponding 173 sentencing guidelines were introduced. 149. The IACHR notes that these legislative amendments do not affect the facts to which the case d’espèce refers, which are criminal proceeding that have long since been concluded and that were conducted in their entirety under Law 18,314, prior to its amendment by Law 20,467. Nevertheless, because this report of the Commission examines Chile’s anti-terrorism criminal laws in relation to the facts of this case, some initial comments are in order concerning the legislative amendments approved thus far, based on information in the public domain. 150. Here, the Commission observes that the amendments that Law 20,467 introduced do not alter the substance of articles 1, 2 and 7 of Law 18,314, which were applied to the petitioners and which this report discusses. Subsequent to the amendment, one notes a change in the structure of the definition of terrorist offenses; however, the Commission observes that the language in which the definition is written is identical to the language used in Law 18,314. The only changes are in the order of the phrases and in the conjunctions used to join the three hypothetical conditions that are the grounds 170 Article 1 of Law 20,467 replaces Article 1 of Law 18,314, with the following text: “Article 1.- The offenses listed in Article 2 constitute terrorist offenses when the offense is committed with the intention of instilling in the population or in a portion thereof a well-founded fear of becoming victim to similar crimes, either due to the nature and effect of the methods used or evidence suggesting that it is part of a premeditated plan to attack a specific category or group of people, either in order to undo or thwart decisions by the authorities or to impose demands upon them.” 171 Article 1 of Law 20,467 replaces the introductory paragraph of Article 2 of Law 18,314, as follows: “In the introductory paragraph [of Article 2] the phrase “when any of the conditions indicated in the previous article is present” is replaced by the phrase “when the conditions therein specified are present.” 172 According to Article 1 of Law 20,467, subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of Law 18,314 shall read as follows: “1.- The crimes of homicide punishable under Article 391; the crimes of felonious assault criminalized in articles 395, 396, 397 and 398; the crimes of kidnapping and abduction of minors, punishable under articles 141 and 142; the crimes of mailing explosive devices, punishable under Article 403 bis; the crimes of arson and vandalism, punishable under articles 474, 475, 476 and 480, and violations of public health covered in articles 313(d), 315 and 316, all under the Penal Code, and the crimes of train derailment, punishable under articles 105, 106, 107 and 108 of the General Railway Law.” Under that same article, subparagraph 4 of Article 2 of Law 18,314 shall read as follows: “the placement, mailing or shipping, activation, hurling, detonation or firing of bombs, explosives or incendiary devices of any type, arms or devices of great destructive power or toxic, corrosive or infectious agents.” 173 Under Article 1 of Law 20,467, Article 7 of Law 18,314 will read as follows: “The penalty for an attempt to commit any of the crimes to which this law shall be the penalty for the crime in question, reduced by one or two degrees. The penalty for conspiracy to commit any of the crimes to which this law refers shall be the penalty for the crime, reduced by two degrees. The provision of this clause shall not alter the provision of Article 3 bis. // The penalty for a serious and credible threat to commit any of the crimes mentioned in this law shall be the same as the penalties for an attempt to commit the crime in question, without the increased degrees mentioned in Article 3. This provision shall not apply if the deed deserves a harsher penalty, under Article 296 of the Penal Code.”