77 288. It is the opinion of the Commission that the guarantee of non bis in idem can be applied in cases in which the verdict of acquittal is final. Furthermore, the Human Rights Committee’s clarification applies in the inter-American sphere, i.e., in the sense that the nullification of a lower court ruling by a higher court is not in itself a violation of the principle, if the judgment was still subject to challenge. In the instant case, under Article 372 of the Chilean Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time, the verdict of acquittal delivered by the oral criminal trial court on April 14, 2003 was still subject to challenge via a motion seeking to have the ruling vacated. For that reason, the nullification of that decision and the nullification of the trial do not constitute violations of Article 8(4) of the American Convention. VI. CONCLUSIONS 289. Based on the considerations of fact and of law established in the present report, the InterAmerican Commission concludes that: 1. The State of Chile violated the principle of legality, recognized in Article 9 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations set forth in articles 1(1) and 2 thereof and to the detriment of Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, José Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Lican, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles and Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe. 2. The State of Chile violated the right to equal protection of the law and non-discrimination, recognized in Article 24 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations set forth in articles 1(1) and 2 thereof to the detriment of Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, José Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Lican, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles and Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe. 3. The State of Chile violated the right to freedom of expression and the political rights, established in Articles 13 and 23 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations set forth in article 1(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, José Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Lican, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles and Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe. 4. The State of Chile violated the principle of individual criminal responsibility and the presumption of innocence, recognized in Articles 8(1), 8(2) and 9 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof and to the detriment of Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, José Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Lican, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles and Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe. 5. The State of Chile violated the right of defense of Lonkos Aniceto Norín and Pascual Pichún, and of Werken Víctor Ancalaf, specifically their right to question the witnesses in the court, in keeping with Article 8(2)(f) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations set forth in articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. 6. The Chilean State violated the right to appeal a judgment, recognized in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations set forth in articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, José Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Lican, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles and Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe. 7. The Chilean State violated the right to an impartial judge, recognized in Article 8(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, José Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan