81 odds with some of the fundamental standards set forth in the international law of the human rights of children and adolescents. The State of Chile must step up its efforts to ensure that these critical standards are duly upheld by all public authorities; otherwise, it would be breaching its international responsibility. Firstly, at the most basic level, the application of Law 18.314 to a person under the age of 18 years old implies accepting that a child can be considered a terrorist. In the view of the author of this concurring opinion, even though a child may be the actual perpetrator of conduct matching the legal definition of terrorism, his level of volition and maturity, in principle, precludes him from being considered anything other than a victim of what is most definitely criminal manipulation by groups or individuals who pursue the political objectives which, by definition, characterize violent terrorism. The political connotation and structural definition of the crime of terrorism, along with the elements of motivation and predetermination by which it is characterized, make it impossible for a child or teenager to be considered a terrorist. Application of an anti-terrorist statute, such as Chile’s, is also at odds with the principle of protection of the rights of children and adolescents in conflict with the law. In fact, Chile’s anti-terrorist law is particularly severe and has been designed to provide a more forceful response to particularly serious criminal acts; anti-terrorist criminal legislation, therefore, is the most restrictive tool available to the State to suppress conduct that strikes at society as a whole. In juvenile criminal law systems, however, it is quite the opposite; there must be a less forceful and more careful response in determining punishments, which must be predicated on a lower level of punitive action, avoid the deprivation of liberty, be geared toward social reintegration and, thus, allow for as much contact with the family, community and school, as possible. The application of anti-terrorist legislation to children and adolescents is diametrically opposed to this and, therefore, to the very logic upon which systems of juvenile criminal responsibility are built. Any child or adolescent who comes into conflict with the law enjoys several internationally recognized minimum rights; children and teenagers who break criminal law must be dealt with under special systems of criminal responsibility. International rules and standards applicable to juvenile justice are enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as in other international instruments, such as the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, and the United Nations Guidelines for the 272 Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency. In order for a special system of criminal responsibility to be implemented, special rules of procedure and sentencing, as well as limitations on the deprivation of liberty, must apply to children and adolescents. According to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the guarantees established in the Convention on the Rights of the Child pertaining to juveniles who allegedly have violated criminal laws, or who are accused of or plead guilty to violating criminal laws, fully respect their procedural rights, the development and implementation of measures for dealing with children in conflict with the law without resorting to judicial proceedings, and the use of deprivation of liberty only as a measure of last resort. The Committee notes that the administration of juvenile justice must promote, inter alia, the use of alternative measures such as diversion and restorative justice, consistently taking into account the best interests of 273 the child. A special law establishing the limits and characteristics of criminal responsibility of juveniles, Law 20.084 of 2007, has already been enacted by the Chilean State. Under this law, the Chilean State can criminally prosecute and punish children 14 to 18 years of age, in a manner that is consistent with international standards: avoiding deprivation of liberty, ensuring due process, and making sure that punishments are aimed at social reintegration of juveniles. Instituting criminal proceedings against indigenous children and adolescents under the procedure set forth in Law 18.314, which significantly restricts the scope of the minimum guarantees which constitute due process, is difficult to reconcile with these internationally recognized principles, as explained in the merits report of the instant case. 272 United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child: General Comment No. 10 (2007) – Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice. UN Document CRC/C/GC/10, April 25, 2007, par. 4. 273 United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child: General Comment No. 10 (2007) – Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice. UN Document CRC/C/GC/10, April 25, 2007, pars. 1, 3.