established in its case law, involves the right of everyone to receive the opinions, reports, and news of third parties.367 376. In addition, it could have produced an intimidating and inhibiting effect on the exercise of freedom of expression, derived from the specific effects of the undue application of the Counter-terrorism Act to members of the Mapuche indigenous people. In other cases, the Court has previously referred to the intimidating effect on the exercise of freedom of expression that may result from the fear of being subject to a civil or criminal sanction that is unnecessary or disproportionate in a democratic society, and that may lead to the self-censorship of the person on whom the punishment is imposed, and on other members of society.368 In the instant case, the Court considers that the way in which the Counter-terrorism Act was applied to members of the Mapuche indigenous people could have instilled a reasonable fear in other members of this people involved in actions related to the social protest and the claim for their territorial rights, or who would eventually want to participate in this. 377. Nevertheless, the Court is not persuaded by the argument of CEJIL that the restriction of freedom of expression stipulated in article 9 of the Chilean Constitution constitutes prior censorship prohibited by Article 13 of the Convention (supra para. 367.a). The argument appears not to have taken into account that this was an ancillary penalty established by law, which was imposed by a sentence in a criminal trial. 378. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Chile violated the right to freedom of thought and expression protected in Article 13(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao and Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe. 2. Political rights 379. The Court reiterates that, in the instant case, the presumed victims were sentenced in criminal proceedings that were held in conditions that violated the American Convention (supra Chapter VII.1 and VII.2) and, in addition, it has verified that ancillary penalties were imposed that restricted their political rights (supra paras. 117, 126 and 144). Based on the arguments presented in this regard, the Court will rule on the alleged violation of Article 23 of the Convention to the detriment of the presumed victims. 380. Article 23 of the Convention stipulates the following: Article 23. Right to Participate in Government 1. Every citizen shall enjoy the following rights and opportunities: a) to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; b) to vote and to be elected in genuine periodic elections, which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and by secret ballot that guarantees the free expression of the will of the voters; and c) to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his country. 2. The law may regulate the exercise of the rights and opportunities referred to in the preceding paragraph only on the basis of age, nationality, residence, language, education, civil and mental capacity, or sentencing by a competent court in criminal proceedings. 367 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 148, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, para. 138. 368 Mutatis Mutandi, Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, para. 129, and Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2011. Series C No. 238, para. 74. 128