24 75. The Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Government and the private accuser filed a motion 90 with the Supreme Court on April 24, 2003 seeking to have the lower court’s ruling vacated and the 91 92 verdict overturned. It cited the grounds set forth in Articles 373-a) and 374-e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The three motions argued that the ruling did not contain an adequate discernment of the 93 evidence entered by the accusers during oral arguments. The Supreme Court decided that it would 94 first rule on the motion to vacate, and concluded that the analysis of the verdict being challenged was inadequate as the court’s interpretation had failed to analyze all the evidence in the case file, particularly 95 the evidence supplied by the accusers to prove that the defendants were guilty. 76. The Supreme Court thus upheld the motion asserting the absolute nullity of a ruling, set forth in Article 374 (e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in relation to Article 342 (c). Accordingly, it 96 refrained from deciding the other grounds invoked by the complainants. Its decision, which was a majority decision, was to vacate the criminal trial, overturn the verdict of acquittal and order the competent trial court to retry the case. One of the justices on the Court cast a dissenting vote. 6. The second verdict –conviction- delivered by the Angol oral criminal trial court 77. Subsequent to the Supreme Court’s nullification of the verdict of acquittal, a new criminal trial got underway on September 9, 2003. When the trial came to an end, the Angol oral criminal trial court, with different judges presiding, delivered its verdict to convict on September 27, 2003. Two of the defendants, Lonkos Norín and Pichún, were convicted of the crime of “terrorist threats” and sentenced to 97 five years and a day of imprisonment. Defendant Patricia Troncoso was cleared of any responsibility in the crimes of which the Public Prosecutor’s Office had charged her. 90 Chilean Supreme Court Decision, July 2, 2003. Attached to the original petitions that Aniceto Norín and Pascual Pichún filed with the IACHR, received on August 15, 2003. 91 This article reads as follows: Article 373. A trial or judgment may be declared null and void: (a) when the rights recognized in the Constitution or international treaties in force in Chile have been substantively violated at any stage of the proceedings or in the judgment (…)”. 92 This article provides the following: Article 374. Grounds for vacating trials and overturning verdicts. Trials shall be vacated and verdicts overturned whenever: (…) (e) the judgment has omitted one of the requirements established in Article 342, subparagraphs c), d) or e).” For its part, Article 342 reads as follows: “Article 342. Content of the verdict. The final verdict shall contain: (…) (c) A clear and cogent explanation of each of the facts and circumstances that the court takes as established, whether favorable or unfavorable to the defendant, and an analysis of the means of evidence that support those conclusions, in accordance with Article 297; d) the legal and doctrinal reasons for the court’s classification of each of the facts and circumstances and as the basis for the judgment; e) the decision to either convict or acquit each of the defendants of each of the crimes of which they were accused in the indictment; the ruling on any civil liability the defendants may have and the amount of any damages owed; (…)”. 93 The Supreme Court explained that: “The motions have one fact in common, which is that in arriving at the conclusion expressed in consideranda eleven, which was that the involvement of the defendants in the punishable offenses attributed to them (which, moreover, the judges deemed to have been established) had not been proven, the court did not properly assess and weigh the evidence that the accusers presented in the oral arguments, as will be examined below. The accusers end by requesting that the oral proceedings be vacated, that the verdict be overturned and that a new trial by a court having jurisdiction be ordered.” Ruling of the Chilean Supreme Court, July 2, 2003; consideranda one. Attached to the original petitions that Aniceto Norín and Pascual Pichún filed with the IACHR, received on August 15, 2003. 94 The Court explained that although the motion seeking to have the rulings vacated were based on two different grounds –those established in Article 373 a) and in Article 374 e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure- “for reasons that will be explained later in this ruling, the Court has opted to single out and analyze the second of the two grounds, i.e., the one that argues the absolute nullity of a ruling based on the fact that the ruling failed to meet any of the requirements set forth in Article 342, subparagraphs c), d) or e).” Ruling of the Chilean Supreme Court, July 2, 2003; consideranda one. Attached to the original petitions that Aniceto Norín and Pascual Pichún filed with the IACHR, received on August 15, 2003. 95 Ruling of the Chilean Supreme Court, July 2, 2003; consideranda 8. Attached to the original petitions that Aniceto Norín and Pascual Pichún filed with the IACHR, received on August 15, 2003. 96 Ruling of the Chilean Supreme Court, July 2, 2003; consideranda 9. Attached to the original petitions that Aniceto Norín and Pascual Pichún filed with the IACHR, received on August 15, 2003. 97 Communication that attorney Rodrigo Lillo Vera sent to the IACHR on behalf of Aniceto Norín, received on December 23, 2003, p. 3.