43 to individuals for political, religious or ideological reasons. Such a definition should be limited to offences which can justifiably be equated with terrorism and its serious consequences, and must ensure that the procedural guarantees established in the Covenant are upheld. (…) The State Party should: (b) Amend Act No. 18.314 to bring it into line with article 27 of the Covenant, and 168 revise any sectoral legislation that may contravene the rights spelled out in the Covenant. 145. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism wrote the following in his 2007 report: For purposes of the enforcement of the law, Article 1 of Law No. 18314 describes terrorism as any action “committed with the intention of instilling in the population or in a portion thereof a wellfounded fear of becoming victim to similar crimes, either due to the nature and effect of the methods used or evidence suggesting that it is part of a premeditated plan to attack a specific category or group of people” (paragraph 1) or for the purpose of pressuring authorities to make certain decisions or imposing demands” (paragraph 2). Under the principle of legality recognized in Article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Special Rapporteurs consider that this definition is too broad and too vague. That principle, which is non-derogable even in the event of a state of emergency, means that criminal culpability must be determined on the basis of clear and unambiguous provisions established by law, so as to ensure that the principle of legal certainty is respected and that the principle is not subject to an interpretation that 169 allows one to broaden the scope of the punishable conduct. 146. The Commission notes that the risks of maintaining open-ended criminal classifications which can lead to different interpretations of conduct that is considered criminally reprehensible, particularly in the context of prosecution and punishment of terrorism, are a discriminatory application of such provisions or their use to criminalize broad situations of social protest. Given the lack of a clear definition as conduct that is considered terrorism, the domestic judges enjoy a wide margin of discretion for introducing general contexts of social protest or a person's membership of an ethnic group as determinants in classifying an act as terrorism. In the following section the Commission examines the effects of the imprecision and vagueness of several aspects of Articles 1, 2, and 7 of Law 18.314, with regard to the right of the victims to equality and nondiscrimination, as well as their right to freedom of expression. Therefore, the articles examined above are incompatible with the principle of legality recognized in Article 9 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations undertaken in articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, which constituted a violation of the said right to the detriment of Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, José Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Lican, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles and Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe. 147. Lastly, the Commission observes that Mr. Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán and Mr. Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao also alleged a violation of their right to legality because they were convicted of the crime of “terrorist threats” which, in their opinion, does not exist as such or in those exact terms in Chilean law. After reading the complete text of the conviction, the Commission considers that if the conviction was for “terrorist threats”, then the judgment should specify the provision of Law 18,314 in which “terrorist threat” is classified as a terrorist offense. While the court does use different language to refer to the crime of which the two were convicted, it is clear that, having established the facts, the court specified, in the judgment itself, the specific type of crime that the two men were supposedly threatening to commit and made reference to the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Law in which threats are criminalized. Therefore, the Commission does not consider that the principle of 168 UN- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Human Rights Committee – Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 40 of the Covenant. Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee. Chile. Doc CCPR/C/Chl/Co/5 – April 17, 2007. 169 HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL - Sixth session - PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF ALL HUMAN RIGHTS CIVIL, POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin – ADDENDUM. Doc. UN A/HRC/6/17/Add.1, 28 November 2007, paragraph 8 [translation ours].