victims contain “explicit and direct” discriminatory references and referred to each of them. It underscored, among other matters, that “the motivation [of the judgments] incorporates elements relating to ethnic origin, traditional leadership and links with the Mapuche indigenous people” in the domestic court’s analysis of the subjective element or the terrorist intent, and c) There had been a violation of impartiality, because the judges who delivered the judgments convicting the eight presumed victims “assessed and classified the acts based on pre-conceived ideas concerning the context in which they took place, and by adopting their decision to convict the accused applying these prejudices.” According to the Commission, “the judges of the Oral Criminal Court held preconceived ideas about the situation of public order associated with the so-called ‘Mapuche conflict,’ a bias that caused the judges to consider it proved that Region IX was the scene of violent activities, which included the acts investigated in the case; it also caused them to copy, almost verbatim, the very same reasoning used in assessing individual conduct in an earlier criminal proceeding.” 190. The FIDH argued that Chile had “violated the right to equal protection of the law and non-discrimination established in Article 24 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, 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 Licán.” It also asserted that Chile had “violated the right to an impartial judge established in Article 8(1) of the Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument,” to the detriment of these presumed victims. a) In relation to the principle of equality and non-discrimination, it referred to the prosecution of these presumed victims and stressed that the judgments against them “were based on reasoning of a discriminatory nature owing to their ethnic affiliation,” referring to several considerations in the said reasoning. Regarding the alleged selective application of Law No. 18,314, the FIDH indicated that “[t]he evidence of the difference in treatment” arose from “the application of harsher and inappropriate punishments.” It affirmed that “all the powers of the Chilean State were involved in the decision not to apply ordinary law but rather emergency law […] to members of the Mapuche people” without an objective and reasonable justification. It indicated that “criminal justice statistics, the disproportion between the offense and the punishment, failure to respect the presumption of innocence, the biased assessments by the judges, the discourse of the Prosecution Service and the Ministry of the Interior, reveal a clear pattern of ethnic discrimination.” Regarding the “statistical data” on the application of the said law between 2000 and 2005, it asked that this be “interpreted together with the effect of the undue application of terrorism offenses to the persons [it] represented.” It also argued that “even nowadays the Counter-terrorism Act continues to be applied in a discriminatory manner to the Mapuche” and that “although this regime is applied in the investigation and trial stage, the judge then delivers a conviction for offenses under ordinary law.” b) Regarding the alleged violation of the right to an impartial court, it argued that “there was a subjective impartiality (sic) in the judgments convicting the victims in the case of the Lonkos and in the Poluco Pidenco case” and that it endorsed the Commission’s conclusion in its Merits Report. It also affirmed that “the application of an inappropriate punishment to the Lonkos also reveals the bias.” It argued also that the reference in the sentences to concepts such as “notorious public fact” and “it is public knowledge” shows that the domestic courts “approached the case with a bias or stereotype” and that the domestic court had copied the part relating to the classification of the acts as terrorist actions of the acquittal judgment in the case of Messrs. Norín 66