and Pichún Paillalao was not adapted to the basic requirements needed to comply with Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention, thus violating their right to appeal the guilty verdict. c.ii) Criminal proceedings against Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán and Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles (judgment delivered by the Temuco Court of Appeal on October 13, 2004, denying the appeals for annulment) 281. The five persons convicted of the offense of terrorist arson (supra para. 128) filed separate appeals for annulment. The five appeals were rejected together by the Temuco Court of Appeal in a judgment of October 13, 2004 (supra paras. 126 to 128). 282. The appellants submitted arguments relating to both the incorrect assessment of the evidence and the erroneous application of the law. Specifically, they affirmed that several testimonies offered by the prosecution had not been assessed, or had not been assessed in an independent manner, and that certain evidence proposed by the defense had been rejected unduly. They also argued that the subjective element of the definition of the offense of terrorism had not been proved and that the principle of guilt had been violated because the classification of the acts as terrorism had been concluded based on acts carried out by third parties.308 283. The judgment of the Temuco Court of Appeal, when ruling on the arguments cited by the appellants, stated that the court that decided the appeal for annulment: […] by law, must restrict itself to evaluating whether the judgment […] of the oral trial court […] was sufficient in itself; whether it had made an appropriate assessment of the evidence on which its conclusions were founded, and whether it indicated the reasons why it rejected the evidence that had not been assessed, without reviewing the facts that were established therein because, to the contrary, the principle of immediacy would be violated and the appeal for annulment would be impaired, which does not have an impact on the factual aspects as they were established by the oral criminal trial court. (Considerandum 5) [Italics added] In another passage, it stated that a certain conclusion of the oral trial court appeared: […] in subparagraphs one, two and three of the fourteenth considerandum, which establishes the facts, and thus cannot be examined by this court. (Considerandum 20) [Italics added] 284. It also stated that: […] The judgment must be sufficient in itself, and to this end must contain a coherent and explicit analysis of the result of the assessment of evidence, and have the necessary clarity to be comprehensible to the reader, which may be another court that hears the case by means of an appeal, without the latter having to re-examine the proceedings and make a new assessment, due to ignorance of the elements on which the decision was based […]. (Third considerandum) However, this requirement does not signify that all the evidence must be assessed, because what art. 342.c of the Criminal Procedural Code expressly requires is that the court make an assessment of the evidence that substantiates its conclusions, and this is according to article 297 of this code, when it establishes that the assessment of the evidence in the judgment shall require an indication of the evidence taken into account in order to substantiate each of the facts and circumstances that was considered proved. Similarly, not all the evidence is subject to assessment, but only the evidence that serves as grounds for the conclusions reached by the court. Regarding the remainder of the evidence provided during the proceedings, and which is not subject to assessment, art. 297 of the Criminal Procedural Code establishes that the court must indicate the reasons why it was rejected. (Fourth considerandum) 308 Cf. Appeals for annulment filed by Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán and Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles against the judgment delivered on August 22, 2004, by the Angol Oral Criminal Trial Court (file of helpful evidence presented by the State, folios 208 to 321 and 1166 to 1199), and Judgment delivered on October 13, 2004, by the Temuco Court of Appeal (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, annex 19, folios 688 to 716). 99