10 29 only in exceptional circumstances by the Supreme Court, based on Article 376 of the Code of Criminal 30 Procedure; (ii) both the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the private plaintiffs filed their motions seeking to have the verdict vacated on the basis of Article 373-a), which gave the Supreme Court the authority to hear them, and also “on the grounds that the verdict had not been properly reasoned and substantiated 31 to arrive at a verdict of acquittal (which is the very grounds for review by an appellate court)” ; and (iii) in this case, the Supreme Court declared the motion admissible and “then, when ruling on it, incredibly made no reference to the grounds cited in Article 373 a), which concerns a substantial violation of rights or guarantees protected by the Constitution or international treaties and which are precisely the grounds upon which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear a motion; in its ruling, the Supreme Court made reference only to the second grounds alleged by the petitioners, which is the grounds where the appellate court has jurisdiction (the one contemplated in Article 373 b)), i.e. a motion that argues that the 32 law upon which the ruling relies heaviest has been misinterpreted.” Petitioner Pascual Pichún also took issue with the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to adopt the decision that vacated his acquittal; he explains that in order to take jurisdiction, the Supreme Court invoked the grounds cited in Article 373 a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the lack of reasoning to support the verdict of acquittal, and that “the Court declared the motion admissible; then, when delivering its ruling on the motion, addressed only the second grounds alleged by the complainants (which is the grounds for which the appellate court has jurisdiction), and deemed it unnecessary to address the other grounds because it had already vacated 33 the verdict on the grounds that the acquittal was not a reasoned verdict.” 29. Petitioners Pascual Pichún and Aniceto Norín argue that they were convicted by a court that did not have jurisdiction and had not been established by law prior to the date of the events. They contend that Article 8(1) of the Convention was thus violated. The petitioners explain that by 2001, the date on which the events occurred, the reform of the criminal procedural code was already in force in region IX of Chile, but the special law giving the court such powers –Law 19,806, which amended Law 18,314, especially its Article 10- was not yet in force. For the petitioners, “the error is that the Angol oral criminal trial court only has competence by virtue of the amendment that Law 19,806 introduced into Law 18,314, an amendment that came subsequent to the events; the law dates from May 31, 2002 whereas 34 the events occurred in 2001.” Thus, the competent court in 2001 must rely on the provisions of Article 10 of Law 18,314 prior to its amendment by Law 19,806. The text of that article before it was amended reads as follows: Proceedings instituted for the offenses criminalized under this law shall be undertaken by the courts ex officio or when a complaint is filed in accordance with the general rules. // The foregoing notwithstanding, such proceedings may also be instituted at the request or upon a complaint from the Ministry of the Interior, from the Regional Intendants, from the Governors of the provinces and from the garrison commanders, in which case the provisions of Title VI –Jurisdiction and Procedure- of Law 12,927 shall be followed, except in the case of Article 27(ñ). // The authorities to which the above subparagraph refers may also prepare complaints even when the case is already in progress, in which case the provisions on jurisdiction and procedure in that 35 subparagraph shall also apply. 29 Original petition that Aniceto Norín Catrimán filed with the IACHR, received on August 15, 2003, p. 10. 30 Article 376, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited on page 10 of Aniceto Norín’s original petition filed with the IACHR, reads as follows: “The Supreme Court shall hear motions based on the grounds stipulated in Article 373, subparagraph a). The respective appellate court shall hear motions based on the grounds cited in Article 373, paragraph b) and in Article 374.” 31 Original petition that Aniceto Norín Catrimán filed with the IACHR, received on August 15, 2003, p. 10. 32 Original petition that Aniceto Norín Catrimán filed with the IACHR, received on August 15, 2003, p. 12. 33 Original petition that Pascual Pichún Paillalao filed with the IACHR, received on August 15, 2003, p. 5. 34 Communication that attorney Rodrigo Lillo Vera sent to the IACHR on behalf of Aniceto Norín, received on December 23, 2003, p. 11. 35 Cited in the communication that attorney Rodrigo Lillo Vera sent to the IACHR on behalf of Aniceto Norín, received on December 23, 2003, p. 11.