56 court deemed to be the facts in the case, in Consideranda 15 the court then proceeded to declare the existence of the crime to be proved and to classify the actions as terrorist acts, arguing that: “The facts indicate that these actions were taken for the purpose of instilling in a portion of the population a justified fear of falling victims to such crimes, given the circumstances and the nature and effects of the means employed; it is obvious that everything was part of a premeditated plan to attack property belonging to third parties who are engaged in work related to 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.” Then, in Consideranda 17, the court summarizes the evidence that served as the basis for the court’s finding that Victor Ancalaf was a material author of the attack on the truck, whereupon it immediately convicted the defendant of being the perpetrator of terrorist offenses. Summarizing, the court’s classification of the crime as a terrorist offense relied heavily on contextual considerations, such as the Mapuche people’s opposition to the construction of the Ralco Hydroelectric Plant; this, the court concluded, was the backdrop against which the attack occurred. 198. The IACHR wishes to clarify that the purpose of this analysis is not to determine if, based on the evidence at the disposal of the Chilean judicial authorities, the victims were rightly convicted. Nor is it the Commission's task to determine if the conduct of a particular person or group may be regarded as terrorist. As the Court has previously stated, the organs of the inter-American system for protection of human rights do not function as an mechanism of appeal or review of judgments issued in domestic proceedings. Their function is to determine the compatibility of the steps taken in those proceedings with 205 the American Convention. 199. Having read the convictions, the commission finds that in the case of Lonkos Segundo Aniceto Norín and Pascual Pichún, the main grounds for the classification of the threats ascribed to them as “terrorist” was the ethnic origin of the accused, as well as their status as Lonkos of communities belonging to the Mapuche indigenous people. These elements are noted in the conviction as is the context of struggle and claims for land of the Mapuche people, which was represented by the Court as a series of illegal, violent acts, without a distinction drawn between the legitimate acts of social protest of the Mapuche people and the acts of violence that have occurred in said context. Nowhere in the judgment is a direct link made between the Lonkos and those acts of violence. To the contrary, assumptions are made based on their status as leaders of their communities. Although it is mentioned that the Lonkos reputedly belonged to a violent organization, no explanation is offered of their link to that organization or the reasons why it is considered a terrorist organization. Therefore, it is clear that the branding of the threats as terrorist constituted a patent difference of treatment based on the ethnic origin and status as Lonkos of Segundo Aniceto Norín and Pascual Pichún. 200. In the case of Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán, and Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán, as well as of Víctor Ancalaf, the Commission sees that the judicial authorities inferred that owing to their membership of and/or link to the Mapuche indigenous people, the offenses with which they were charged were part of a series of acts of violence perpetrated sporadically in the broader context of the protests of that indigenous people. The Commission observes that these decisions mentioned the means used to commit the offenses charged and the effects that they caused as grounds to infer terrorist intent. 201. However, when a person's membership of an ethnic group is taken into consideration to classify an act as a terrorist offense, with the consequences attendant thereon under the country’s domestic system of laws, one is faced with a possible act of racial discrimination which, as has been Police Force and Gendarmerie, which observes that the three fires under investigation share similar characteristics that suggest “planning between the Pehuenche activists from the Alto Bío Bío and activists from other parts of the country, steadfast opponents to the construction of the Ralco Hydroelectric Plant,” waged on the grounds that it is “destroying the environment and the ancestral culture and customs of the Pehuenche people.” 84 I/A Court H.R., Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C, No. 126. par. 62. Citing. Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C, No. 99, par. 120; Bámaca Velásquez Case. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C, No. 70, par. 189; and The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C, No. 63, par. 222.