15. The petitioners state that the trial took place on July 29 and August 17, 2004. They were sentenced to ten years and one day of longer imprisonment in medium degree, to absolute and permanent disqualification from holding public office, from exercising political rights, and from licensed professions during the duration of their sentence, for the crime of terrorist arson with prejudice to Forestal Mininco S. A. They were also sentenced to jointly and severally indemnify the company in the amount of $424.964.798 (Chilean pesos). 16. The petitioners maintain that the judgment and sentence against them is the outcome of multiple violations of their human rights, which occurred during the investigation and during the trial, both at the time when the judicial decision and sentencing were handed down, and in the review of the judgment before the higher court. 17. With respect to Article 8(2) paragraphs “c” and “f” of the American Convention, the petitioners argue that during the trial they were deprived of the right to adequate means to prepare their defense. They affirm that the violation of this right took place from the moment in which testimony provided by the prosecutor against them during the investigation turned out to be substantially different from the evidence provided in the trial. 18. The petitioners argue that their defense at all times was based on the background provided by the public prosecutor; it was on this basis that they articulated the arguments of their defense and prepared the cross-examination of the witnesses for the prosecution. They further point out that article 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the background information gathered during an investigation must be placed at the disposal of the defendant in order that he or she may prepare his or her defense. According to the petitioners, the Office of the Attorney General handed over to them, for their preparation of their defense, the background information gathered during its investigation consisting of witness testimony, expert testimony, and documentary evidence. They affirm that there was a radical change in the testimony given in the trial itself: witnesses gave accounts of the facts different from those given in their depositions on the investigation’s record, and changing essential circumstances in the facts. The petitioners claim that they were all found guilty exclusively on the basis of evidence from witness testimony. 19. The petitioners state that, referring to the testimonial evidence with respect to which, since it was unknown to them, they had not prepared any questions, nor articulated arguments for their defense, the court stated: The remaining arguments, such as that not all available evidence was presented, or that some witnesses had modified their initial testimony, or that the identifications carried out in the hearings had been forced by a prior review of photographs of the defendants, or that many witnesses met in a cabin in the city of Lautaro, where they were visited by officials of the Office of the Attorney General and by police officers, shall not be considered by this Court: the decision the Court must reach is based on all the information that judges receive during the hearings; this, in turn, is nothing but the clearest expression of the principle of immediacy .3 20. With respect to Article 8(2)(f), the petitioners affirm that their right to introduce evidence was not formally denied: they had the opportunity to present witnesses, expert witnesses, and could introduce considerable documentary evidence. However, the petitioners consider that the court, in deciding the merits, did not weigh the evidence submitted by the defense. 21. The petitioners argue that Article 8(2)(h) was violated because the defense appealed the decision before the Court of Appeals of Temuco. However, the higher court abstained from considering several of their arguments, and performed only a partial review of the lower court’s decision, arguing that to hear other arguments would entail the consideration of 3 Final paragraph of whereas clause No. 18 of the judgment of the Oral Trial Court of Angol. Cited by the petitioners in an April 13, 2005 communication. 3