a) Annulled the part of the Judgment of December 30, 2003, that sentenced Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe to ten years and one day of medium-level rigorous imprisonment, as perpetrator of the terrorist offenses committed on September 29, 2001, and March 3, 2002, and, instead, acquitted him “of the said charges made in the indictment,” and b) Confirmed the conviction of Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe “only as perpetrator of the terrorist offense established in article 2.4 of Law 18,314 in relation to article 1 of this law, committed on March 17, 2002,” and sentenced him to the punishment of five years and one day of minimum-level rigorous imprisonment,” and to the other ancillary penalties established in the first instance judgment (supra para. 144). 148. Regarding the ancillary penalties, it should be mentioned that the State provided, as part of the helpful evidence, a report issued by the Regional Director of the Chilean Prison Service, Araucanía Region, which contains a table describing the ancillary penalties imposed on the presumed victims in this case. In this table, Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe appears without ancillary penalties. This does not concur with the judgments or with the statement made by Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe during the public hearing held before the Inter-American Court on May 29, 2013, in which he stated as follows: “For example, I will never be able to hold public office; I have not been able to exercise the civil right to head any board in any company, or […] to assume positions in any municipality or in any other State entity.” He also testified that he is unable to vote (“even though one would like to take part in the elections, one cannot do this either”).153 Therefore, the Court understands that the judgment of the Concepción Court of Appeal confirmed the ancillary penalties established in the first instance judgment (supra paras. 144 and 147 in fine). 149. Regarding terrorist intent, the sentence convicting Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe was founded on the legal presumption of intent to instill fear in the general population. Although the wording of the decisions issued by the investigating judge of the Concepción Court of Appeal, in first instance, and by the Concepción Court of Appeal, in second instance, does not appear to indicate expressly that the presumption of terrorist intent has been applied, it can be inferred from the references to article 1 of Law No. 18,314 and the context in which that provision was adopted, that the subjective element of terrorism was presumed owing to the means used to commit the act. c) The remedies of cassation and complaint before the Supreme Court of Justice 150. On June 22, 2004, Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe’s defense filed “an appeal for annulment” against the judgment delivered by the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on June 4, 2004 (supra para. 147).154 On August 2, 2004, the Second Chamber of that court declared the appeal for annulment inadmissible, concluding that it was “inadmissible pursuant to the reference made in article 10 of Law 18,314 to article 27(j) of Law 12,927, in force at the time of the proceedings [held against Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe], pursuant to the provisions of the transitory article of Law 19806.” 153 Cf. Note of the Regional Director of the Chilean Prison Service, Araucanía Region addressed to the Deputy Technical Director of the National Directorate, forwarding the procedural and prison records (pre-trial detention, total time of the sentence and ancillary penalties) of the presumed victims in this case (file of helpful evidence presented by the State, folios 1376 to 1381), and statement made the presumed victim Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing held on May 29 and 30, 2013. 154 In the appeal, Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe’s defense affirmed that “the judgment appealed contain[ed] errors of law,” because, “[i]n violation of the norms that regulate evidence, it ha[d] determined the supposed participation of [Mr.] Ancalaf Llaupe in the wrongful acts committed, in circumstances in which he played no part in them, and […] also in violation of the norms that regulate evidence, an ordinary offense was classified, with full awareness, as a special offense, with a harsher punishment and subject to special proceedings that were more restrictive to the rights of the defense.” 50