which established a presumption of “the objective of producing […] fear in the general population.” At the time of the acts for which the presumed victims in this case were tried, and in relation to criminal matters, articles of the law applied in this case stipulated the following: Article 1. The offenses listed in article 2 shall constitute terrorist offenses when any of the following circumstances exist: 1. That the offense is committed in order to produce in the population, or in part of it, the justified fear of being a victim of offenses of the same type, due either to the nature and effects of the means used, or to the evidence that it is part of a premeditated plan to attack a specific category or group of persons. Unless the contrary is verified, the intent of causing fear among the general population shall be presumed when the offense is committed using explosive or incendiary devices, weapons of great destructive power, toxic, corrosive or infectious substances or others that can cause major devastation, or by sending letters, packages or similar objects with explosive or toxic effects. 2. That the offense is committed to force decisions from the authorities or to impose demands. Article 2. The following shall constitute terrorist offenses when they comply with any of the characteristics indicated in the preceding article: 1. Homicides penalized in Articles 390 and 391; injuries penalized in Articles 395, 396, 397 and 399; abductions, either in the form of detention or confinement, or holding someone as a hostage, and the kidnapping of minors, penalized in Articles 141 and 142; mailing of explosive devices established in Article 403 bis; arson and destruction penalized in Articles 474, 475, 476 and 480; infringements of public health of Articles 313(d), 315 and 316, and derailments established in Articles 323, 324, 325 and 326, all of the Criminal Code. 2. Attacking or hijacking a ship, aircraft, train, bus or other means of public transport in service, or carrying out acts that endanger the life, physical integrity or health of their passengers or crew. 3. An attempt on the life and physical integrity of the Head of State or another political, judicial, military, police or religious authority, or persons under international protection, owing to their function. 4. Placing, throwing or firing bombs or explosive or incendiary devices of any type that affect or can affect the physical integrity of persons or cause harm. interpretations of the norm [on the exclusion of minors from the application of the Counter-terrorism Act included in Law No. 20,467,] that are not necessarily consistent with its spirit,” it had to issue this new law which establishes this exclusion and adapts the Counter-terrorism Act to “the principles of special criminal law for adolescents” (file of annexes to the CEJIL motions and arguments brief, annex B.1.11, folio 1775, file of annexes to the FIDH motions and arguments brief, annex 33, folio 1310 and file of annexes to the answering brief of the State, annex 5, folios 88 to 112). These laws are also available at: http://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=29731&tipoVersion=0 Regarding the amendments to the Counter-terrorism Act, see also: affidavits prepared on May 21, 2013, by expert witness Manuel Cancio Meliá, and on May 27, 2013, by expert witness Federico Andreu-Guzmán (file of statements of presumed victims, witnesses and expert witnesses, folios 115 to 166 and 601 to 624). The hunger strikes carried out between 2002 and 2007 by Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles for different reasons related to their detention and prosecution and to the application of the Counter-terrorism Act influenced the presentation of a bill to amend this law, which was adopted in October 2010, with the promulgation of Law No. 20,467, which eliminated the presumption of a terrorist objective due to the use of certain methods. Cf. Note 09.01.03.55/02 of August 7, 2002, signed by the Head of the Traiguén Preventive Detention Center and addressed to the Head of the Security Department of Genchi, Santiago; Note 09.01.01-223/02 of February 16, 2002, signed by the Head of the Angol Preventive Detention Center and addressed to the judge of the Traiguén Guarantees Court; Note 09.01.03.23/02 of March 20, 2002, signed by Head of the Traiguén Preventive Detention Center and addressed to the Head of the Security Department of Genchi, Santiago; Note 08 of October 13, 2003, signed by the Head of the Victoria Prison Sentences Center (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, appendix 1, folios 4391, 4438, 4541, 9196); affidavits prepared on May 14, 2013, by presumed victim Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, and on May 24, 2013, by witness Luis Rodríguez-Piñero Royo; written statement made on May 27, 2013, by presumed victim Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles (file of statements of presumed victims, witnesses and expert witnesses, folios 191, 342 650 to 652), and statement made by presumed victim Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing held on May 29 and 30, 2013. 35