74 274. The petitioners, therefore, appear to have cited an isolated provision of Law 18,314 that 257 was not expressly amended by the rules that entered into force in December 2000 and that defers to the provisions of another law. The other law, for its part, refers to the jurisdiction of a justice on the appeals court –acting as a single-judge court-, even though the amendments to the Code of Criminal 258 Procedure had eliminated that competence. Later, the law to reconcile Chile’s criminal justice system with the amended Code of Criminal Procedure –Law 19,806, which entered into force on May 31, 2002-, amended Article 10 of Law 18,314 to eliminate the reference to the jurisdiction of the justices of the 259 appeals court. 275. The information available indicates, therefore, that even before the events in this case occurred, the reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure created oral criminal trial courts and held that single-judge courts would no longer have jurisdiction in criminal cases. The fact that up until May 31, 2002, Article 10 of the Anti-Terrorism Act still attributed jurisdiction to justices on the appeals court, which by then no longer had such jurisdiction, cannot be interpreted as the petitioners do, which is that on the date of the events in this case, no court in Chile had jurisdiction to hear the crimes being prosecuted. As Chile’s system of criminal procedural law was in flux at the time, the Commission believes that the most reasonable interpretation is that the provision in Article 10 of the Anti-Terrorism Act that attributed jurisdiction to the justices on the appeals courts should be understood as repealed by the generic elimination of these justices’ jurisdiction under Law 19665; therefore, the proper application is what Law 19665 provides, i.e. giving the oral criminal trial courts jurisdiction to take up complaints alleging violations of criminal law. 276. The oral criminal trial courts in Region IX were established one year before the events in this case occurred and had general competence to take up violations of criminal law in their respective jurisdictions. One provision of the Anti-Terrorism Act mentioned in the complaint assigned jurisdiction to certain court authorities, when in fact their jurisdiction had been eliminated one year earlier. The fact that this provision was still on the books, does not constitute a violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention. 4.2 The right to an independent judge or tribunal 277. For justice to be independent the courts must be separate from the other branches of government and must be free of influence, pressure, threat or interference from any quarter or for any reason; it also means that courts must have the necessary qualities to discharge their functions 260 appropriately and independently, which includes tenure and adequate professional preparation. 278. In their observations on the merits, petitioners Aniceto Norín and Pascual Pichún alleged a violation of their right to an independent judge, based on the fact that the provincial and regional 257 The petitioners are alluding to Article 10 of Law 18,314, prior to its amendment under the reconciliation of law and which read as follows: “Article 10.- Proceedings instituted for the offenses criminalized under this law shall be undertaken by the courts ex officio or when a complaint is filed in accordance with the general rules. // The foregoing notwithstanding, such proceedings may also be instituted at the request or upon a complaint from the Ministry of the Interior, from the Regional Intendants, from the Governors of the provinces and from the garrison commanders, in which case the provisions of Title VI –Jurisdiction and Procedureof Law 12,927 shall be followed, except in the case of Article 27(ñ). // The authorities to which the above subparagraph refers may also prepare complaints even when the case is already in progress, in which case the provisions on jurisdiction and procedure in that subparagraph shall also apply.” 258 Article 11 of Law 19,665, which entered into force on March 9, 2000, eliminated the appeals court justices’ jurisdiction over such cases. In Region IX, that law began to be enforced in December 2000. 259 The text of Article 10 of Law 18,314, as amended by Law 19,806, reads as follows: “Article 10. Inquiries into offenses criminalized under this law shall be undertaken by the courts ex officio or when a complaint is filed in accordance with the general rules. // The foregoing notwithstanding, such proceedings may also be instituted at the request or upon a complaint from the Ministry of the Interior, from the Regional Intendants, from the Governors of the provinces and from the garrison commanders.” 260 IACHR, Report on the situation of human rights in Chile (1985), OEA/Ser.L/V/II.77.rev.1, Doc. 18, May 8, 1990, Chapter VIII, paragraph 139. IACHR, Report on the situation of human rights in Haiti (1995), OEA/Ser.L/V.88 Doc. 10 rev., February 9, 1995, Chapter V, paragraphs 276-280. IACHR, Report on the situation of human rights in Ecuador (1997), OEA/Ser.L/V/II.96 Doc. 10 rev. 1, April 24, 1997, Chapter III. IACHR, Report on the situation of human rights in Mexico (1998), OEA/Ser.L/V/II.100 Doc. 7 rev. 1, September 24, 1998, Chapter V, paragraphs 393-398. IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/SER.L/V/II.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1, corr., October 22, 2002, paragraph 229.