28 explanation of the grounds for the ruling (Article 374-e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure); (c) lack of proper evidence to prove that the convicted parties were authors of the crimes of which they were convicted; (d) a failure to prove that the fires were acts of terrorism; (e) a mistaken interpretation of the law (Article 373-b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure) inasmuch as the law does not make “terrorist threat” a crime; and (f) the court did not have jurisdiction to prosecute them. 85. The Supreme Court dismissed each and every one of the grounds cited for nullification and, in a ruling dated December 15, 2003, upheld the conviction: (a) as to the assertion that rights protected under the Constitution and international treaties had been violated, the Supreme Court held that under Law 18,314 a witness’ identity could be kept secret owing to the danger that terrorist crimes pose; it also held that nothing in the verdict suggested that the burden of proving their innocence had been shifted to the two defendants ultimately convicted, innocence that the Court deemed to have been disproven by the evidence offered by the accusers; (b) as for the grounds referenced in Article 374-e of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court held that the ruling did in fact contain a clear, cogent and thorough explanation of the proven facts and of the reasons why the lower court had deemed those facts to be criminal offenses under the law, beyond any reasonable doubt; (c) as for the ground claiming a failure to prove that the defendants were the authors of the crimes, the Supreme Court reasoned that, contrary to what the motion for nullification alleges, consideranda 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the judgment set forth the reasons why the lower court had found the defendants guilty; (d) as for the ground based on a misinterpretation of the law which asserted that the law did not make “terrorist threat” a crime, the Supreme Court held that the allegation was itself based on a mistaken interpretation of Law 18,314, Article 7 of which classifies the threat of committing such crimes as terrorist arson as crimes, and it was clear from the proceedings that the evidence had to do with the crime of arson, and that the threats of arson that were made are punishable offenses under the law; and (e) as for the argument that the court did not have jurisdiction, the Supreme Court asserted that the indictment for terrorist crimes was formalized on January 3, 2002, by which time the law that assigned jurisdiction to ministers on the courts of appeals was no longer in force, and that the party filing the motion failed to take into account the amendment to criminal procedure in Chile, where jurisdiction to prosecute crimes was given to the new oral criminal trial courts therein established. 86. Once this ruling was adopted, the conviction handed down by the oral criminal trial court on September 27, 2003, became final, whereupon the order to arrest Lonkos Pascual Pichún and Aniceto Norín was issued. They were incarcerated in January of 2004, and began to serve the sentence imposed. C. The criminal case and conviction of Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán. 1. The fire for which the petitioners were criminally prosecuted 87. On December 19, 2001, a fire broke out on the Poluco-Pidenco tree farm, owned by the Mininco Lumber Company, S.A., in the district [comuna] of Ercilla, province of Malleco, Region IX of 102 Chile. The fire burned for some two days and scorched almost 108 hectares of land planted with pine 103 and eucalyptus. No one was hurt in the fire; the property damage was assessed by the Public 102 Original petition that Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Juan Ciríaco Millacheo Licán filed with the IACHR, April 13, 2005. Verdict of the Angol oral criminal trial court, August 22, 2004. Attached to the original petition that Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Juan Ciríaco Millacheo Licán filed with the IACHR, April 13, 2005. 103 Verdict of the Angol oral criminal trial court, August 22, 2004, Consideranda one. Attached to the original petition that Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán and Juan Ciríaco Millacheo Licán filed with the IACHR, April 13, 2005.