In his 2009 report,73 James Anaya, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, indicated that although at that time there had been some “progress in the socio-economic situation of the indigenous peoples,” in Chile, “serious inequality […] still persisted in the enjoyment of economic rights, and the rights to health care and education of [these] peoples,” as well as “significant discrimination between the income of indigenous and non-indigenous persons.” 77. Regarding “[t]he current problems facing indigenous peoples,” Rodolfo Stavenhagen, in his report as United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, emphasized that these “cannot be understood without reference to the history of their relations with Chilean society,” because “[t]he present situation of indigenous people in Chile is the outcome of a long history of marginalization, discrimination and exclusion, mostly linked to various oppressive forms of exploitation and plundering of their land and resources that date back to the sixteenth century and continue to this day.”74 78. The leadership of the Mapuche communities is exercised by “Lonkos” and “Werken,” traditional authorities elected to represent one or several communities. The Lonkos are the foremost leaders of their respective communities for both administrative and spiritual matters; they are considered to be the depositaries of ancestral wisdom and head the decision-making processes as well as presiding important religious ceremonies. The Werken, whose name signifies “messenger,” assist the Lonkos and play a complementary leadership role; they are spokespersons on diverse issues, such as political and cultural matters, before other Mapuche communities and before non-Mapuche society.75 The presumed victims Aniceto Norín Catrimán and Pascual Pichún were Lonkos and the presumed victim Víctor Ancalaf was a Werken. 2. The social protest of the Mapuche indigenous people 79. At the beginning of the decade of 2000, when the events occurred for which the presumed victims in this case were convicted, a social situation existed in the south of Chile (Regions VIII, IX and X), above all in Region IX (Araucanía), in which members of the Mapuche 73 UN Doc. A/HRC/12/34/ Add.6, 5 October 2009, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, James Anaya, Addendum, The situation of indigenous peoples in Chile: follow-up to the recommendations made by the previous Special Rapporteur, paras. 7 and 8 (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, annex 12, folios 429 and 430). 74 The said Special Rapporteur explained, among other matters, that at the time of the Spanish conquest agreements were reached “respecting their territorial sovereignty south of the Biobío river,” and that, although “[t]he Chilean Republic maintained the same relationship with the Mapuche nation during the first half of the nineteenth century, […] forays into the region gradually weakened indigenous sovereignty and led to several conflicts.” He indicated that “[f]inally, in 1888, Chile embarked upon the military conquest of Araucanía in what became known in the official history books as the ‘pacification of Araucanía’”; the main outcome of this “was the gradual loss of their territories and resources, as well as their sovereignty, and an accelerated process of assimilation imposed by the country’s policies and institutions, which refused to recognize the separate identities of indigenous cultures and languages.” He added that “Chilean society as a whole, and the political classes in particular, ignored, if not denied, the existence of native peoples within the Chilean nation[, … which] became more pronounced with the construction of a highly centralized State and lasted, with a few exceptions, until the late 1980s.” Cf. UN Doc. E/CN.4/2004/80/Add.3, 17 November 2003, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, submitted in accordance with Commission resolution 2003/56, Addendum, Mission to Chile, paras. 8 to 10 (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, annex 5, folio 251 and 252). 75 Cf. Statements made by presumed victim Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe and by witness Juan Pichún Collonao before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing held on May 29 and 30, 2013; affidavit prepared on May 17, 2013, by expert witness Fabien Le Bonniec, and written statement made on May 26, 2013, by expert witness Rodolfo Stavenhagen (file of statements of presumed victims, witnesses and expert witnesses, folios 321 and 698), and Mella Seguel, Eduardo and Le Bonniec, Fabien, “Movimiento mapuche y justicia chilena en la actualidad: reflexiones acerca de la judicialización de las reivindicaciones mapuche en Chile” in Aylwin, José (Editor), “Derechos Humanos y Pueblos Indígenas: Tendencias Internacionales y Contexto Chileno,” Institute for Indigenous Studies, Universidad de la Frontera, Temuco, 2004 (file of annexes to the CEJIL motions and arguments brief, annex C 10, folio 2356). 25