6 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. 2. If the victims so choose, they shall have the opportunity to have their convictions reviewed in a proceeding conducted in accordance with the principle of legality, the prohibition of discrimination and the guarantees of due process, in the terms described in this report. 3. Make adequate reparations to the victims for the pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages caused by the violations declared in the present report. 4. Adapt the Anti-Terrorism Act embodied in Law 18,314, so that it is compatible with the principle of legality recognized in Article 9 of the American Convention. 5. Adapt the domestic laws governing criminal procedure so that they are compatible with the rights recognized in articles 8(2)(f) and 8(2)(h) of the American Convention. 6. Adopt measures of non-repetition to eradicate the discriminatory prejudices based on ethnic origin in the exercise of public power and, most especially, in the administration of justice. In addition to the need to obtain justice for the victims, the IACHR notes that the present case involves matters of inter-American public order. The Commission specially notes that this case will allow the Court to define standards on equality and non-discrimination, a new course in the jurisprudence of the Inter-American system, i.e. the selective application of a legal framework to a group included in the nondiscrimination clause contained in Article 1.1 of the American Convention. In addition, the Court may examine under the rights to equality and non-discrimination, the different manifestations of the selective application and the polluter effect it can have, in the light of such rights, consideration of ethnicity of a person in a decision court, especially when it comes to the exercise of punitive power of the State. Moreover, the Court may develop its jurisprudence on reparations, in particular on measures of non-repetition that transcend the victims in a particular case and that are necessary to address the use of prejudices and stereotypes in contexts of discriminatory application of a legal framework detriment of a group clearly identified. In addition, this case requires an analysis of the legislation from the perspective of the principle of legality and certain guarantees of due process, with an impact on the definition of standards on this subject. As for the guarantees of due process, the Commission considers that this case represents an opportunity for the Court to define its applicable to the use of witnesses whose identity was not revealed by the court in light of the American Convention identity standards. Moreover, the case will allow the Court to set parameters on the apparent tension between the scope of the right to appeal the judgment and the principles underpinning the adversarial criminal procedure systems.