classify the offense attributed to Víctor Ancalaf as a terrorist offense, without referring to other more precise evidence concerning the conduct of the accused. Thus, instead of considering setting fire to a truck an ordinary offense, it was deemed to be a terrorist offense, since it was analyzed in the context of considerations regarding opposition to the construction of a hydroelectric plant by members of indigenous communities.60 This revealed a certain prejudgment in relation to the actions taken by the indigenous peoples to resist the construction of a hydroelectric plant. 4. Conclusion 42. The authors of this opinion consider that this reasoning – established by the Court in paragraphs 227 and 228 of the Judgment — which is based on negative ethnic stereotypes and prejudices, reveals that the judges had personal prejudices with regard to the accused that were decisive in the establishment of their criminal responsibility (essentially their participation in the criminal act or the special terrorist Historical Truth and New Deal Commission, First part. Historia de los Pueblos Indígenas de Chile y su relación con el Estado, IV. Pueblo Mapuche, Capítulo Primero: Los mapuche en la historia y el presente, page 424, footnote 3 (file of annexes to the final written arguments of the State of Chile, folio 62, link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/27374.pdf) 60 The fifteenth considerandum of the judgment delivered on December 30, 2003, by the investigating judge of the Concepción Court of Appeal, when analyzing the terrorist intent (subjective element of the definition) of the offense established in article 2.4 of Law No 18,314, in relation to article 1 of that law, included the following reasoning: FIFTEENTH: That the facts described in the preceding considerandum constitute the terrorist offense established in article 2.4 of Law No 18,314, in relation to article 1 of that law. This is because they reveal that actions were taken in order to instill in some of the population a justified fear of falling victim to such crimes, bearing in mind the circumstances, and also the nature and effects of the means employed, as well as the evidence that they were the result of a premeditated plan to attack the property of third parties engaged in work relating to the construction of the Ralco Power Plant of Alto Bío Bío, all with the purpose of forcing the authorities to take decisions that would prevent the construction of this plant. In second instance, the Concepción Court of Appeal, in its judgment delivered on June 4, 2004, considered that the subjective element of the terrorist offense had been proved, based on the following considerations: 19. That the evidence relating to the first, seventh and thirteenth conclusions of the first instance ruling constitute judicial presumptions that, carefully assessed, prove that the trucks and the backhoe were set on fire in the context of the Pehuenche conflict, in Region 8, province of Bío Bío, Santa Bárbara commune, in the sector of the cordillera known as Alto Bío Bío, which is related to the opposition to the construction of the Ralco Hydroelectric Plant, and where, also, it is well-known that the sisters, Berta and Nicolasa Quintremán Calpán are opposed to the Endesa project, because their land – which contains their ancestors, their origins, their culture and their traditions – will be flooded when the Plant is built. The acts took place in this context as a way of compelling the authorities to take decisions or of imposing demands to halt the construction of the Plant. 20. That, to this end, on September 29, 2001, and March 3 and 17, 2002, two trucks and a backhoe were set on fire and, subsequently, two more trucks; all vehicles working for Endesa. The first incident involved several individuals all except one of whom wore hoods; they fired a shotgun and hit the truck driver with a stick. The second incident involved at least two individuals with their faces covered, one of them, armed with a shotgun, fired two shots into the air. On the third occasion, a group of hooded individuals was involved, one of whom carried a firearm and fired shots into the air. In all these incidents, inflammable fuel, such as gasoline or a similar product, was used. The illegal acts described above were carried out violently without observing the legal and institutional order in force, resorting to previously planned acts of violence. Considering how the events occurred, the place and the modus operandi, they were perpetrated to create situations of insecurity, instability and anxiety, instilling fear in order to present demands to the authorities under criminal pressure imposing conditions in order to achieve their objectives. 17