Act for the conduct consisting in throwing “a lighted rag” into a truck of a private company after forcing the driver to abandon it. 180. The Court reiterates the importance that the special criminal offense of terrorism is not used in the investigation, prosecution and punishment of criminal offenses when the wrongful act could be investigated and tried as an ordinary offense because it is a less serious conduct (supra para. 163). 181. In addition, several probative elements provided to the Court relate to inconsistency in the application of the Counter-terrorism Act in Chile. As already indicated (supra para. 83), the Special Rapporteur for the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism has stated that “political opinion” in Chile is in agreement that the application of this criminal law to the Mapuche in the context of their social protest is “unsatisfactory and inconsistent.” In addition, in her “Law Report” presented as documentary evidence by both common interveners, Cecilia Medina Quiroga made a comparative analysis of similar criminal cases that she considered had been decided by the Chilean courts “in a totally different way,” even though “the underlying events, the import of the accusations and the context in which both cases took place had numerous similarities.” She indicated that these cases occurred “in the context of social conflict arising from the unresolved demands of the Mapuche communities concerning their ancestral lands,” in which individuals who were members and leaders of these communities were charged with committing terrorist acts linked to setting fire to property.192 Likewise, the Court has noted that, in another criminal trial held for the fire on the Poluco Pidenco property on December 19, 2001, for which five of the victims in this case were convicted as perpetrators of the offense of terrorist arson, the Angol Oral Court Oral applied the ordinary offense of arson established in article 476.3 and not the offense of terrorist arson (supra para. 123). 182. The Court notes that several international bodies and experts have stated that Chile has not dealt effectively with the causes of the Mapuche social protest in the regions of Bío Bío and Araucanía (supra para. 90). In this regard, Ben Emmerson, Special Rapporteur for the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism stated that when the State raises expectations that it will resolve the Mapuche indigenous land claims “that then remain unfulfilled, […] there is an ever-present risk that the protests will escalate.”193 In this regard, it is essential that the State guarantee adequate and effective attention to and resolution of these claims in order to protect and ensure the rights of both the indigenous people and the other members of society in those regions. VII.2 – RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION (ARTICLE 24 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) AND JUDICIAL GUARANTEES (ARTICLE 8(1), 8(2)(F) AND 8(2)(H) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION), IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) 183. The pertinent provisions of Article 8 of the Convention establish the following: Article 8 Right to a Fair Trial 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any 192 Cf. Law report prepared by Cecilia Medina Quiroga at the request of the Chilean Ombudsman, in order “to analyze the adaptation to international human rights treaties of Law No. 18,314, which punishes terrorist actions, and its application in the context of the so-called ‘Mapuche conflict’” (annexes to the CEJIL motions and arguments brief, annex C, folios 2007 to 2061, and annexes to the FIDH motions and arguments brief, annex 13, folios 456 to 510). 193 Cf. UN Doc. A/HRC/25/59/Add.2, 14 April 2014, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Ben Emmerson, Addendum, Mission to Chile, para. 25 (merits file, tome V, folios 2566 to 2587). 63