office of the Special Prosecutor for Crimes of Terrorism, which filed criminal charges against the four Chilean citizens for perpetration of the […] crime [of terrorism] established in article 2 of Decree Law No. 25.475 with the aggravating circumstances described in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of article 3 thereof, the penalties for which were modified by Law No. 26.360. 33. Furthermore, the State indicated that, on October 2, 2002, the National Chamber for Terrorism, Criminal Organizations, and Gangs, decided that “there were grounds for filing oral proceedings against [the victims] for a crime against the Public Order – Terrorism.” In the same indictment, the Chamber specified: i) regarding the 15-day period for holding the oral proceedings, established in article 13, subparagraph (f), of Decree Law No. 25.475, this was contrary to a reasonable time so that “[…] the ordinary rules established for oral proceedings contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the laws that amend it should be applied”; ii) regarding the prohibition to offer as witnesses those who, owing to their functions, intervene in the preparation of the police attestation, established in article 13, subparagraph (c), of Decree Law No. 25.475, this is “contrary to the right to summon witnesses of those who can throw light on the facts,” and iii) regarding the absolute prohibition to challenge the judges who intervene in proceedings for the crime of terrorism, established in article 13, subparagraph (h), of Decree Law No. 25.475, this is “contrary to the right to be tried by an impartial judge” and, “consequently, the norms on recusal established in the Code of Criminal Procedure are applicable.” In its decision of December 20, 2002, the National Chamber for Terrorism decided to recuse of some of the judges who had ordered the opening of the oral proceedings. Furthermore, it indicated that no ruling had been made regarding substantive articles relating to the codification of crimes and imposition of punishments because, in any case, “[a] trial under the normative parameters of a contested law does not imply per se the violation of due process, because, even under the framework in force, it was possible to conduct a trial with full guarantees.” 34. The State forwarded several items from the judicial case file. The indictment filed by the prosecution includes, inter alia, the preliminary statements of the four accused, the testimony of two people who had been kidnapped by the armed group, the “Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA),” of five people accused of being part of the armed group, and of six fully identified witnesses related to the alleged facts, and four statements of the members of the police forces who took part in the operation that led to the capture of the accused. In addition, the testimony of seven repentants with code names was incorporated, and six confrontations were conducted between the accused and witnesses with regard to the facts they were accused of. Other measures related to the ratification of forensic certificates and other types of documentary evidence. During the oral proceedings, several hearings and interrogations were conducted. 35. In addition, the State reported that, on September 2, 2003, the National Chamber for Terrorism sentenced and convicted Castillo Petruzzi, Mellado Saavedra, Pincheira Sáez, and Astorga Valdez; the first three as co-perpetrators and the latter as perpetrator of the crime of terrorism against the State, imposing terms of imprisonment of 23, 20, 18, and 15 years, respectively, as well as an accessory penalty of 180 days’ fine and a sum for civil reparations. In this judgment, the National Chamber for Terrorism analyzed the discussions relating to the public nature of the hearing, the objections to the police attestations, and the objection to a video used as evidence. Moreover, regarding Mr. Astorga Valdez, the National Chamber for Terrorism examined the evidence that incriminated him and concluded that it was “insufficient” to conclude his responsibility for participation in a kidnapping. However, taking into consideration several pieces of evidence, it found that he was responsible for another crime. 36. In view of this judgment, the victims filed an appeal for a declaration of nullity, which was rejected by the Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in decisions of December 10, 2003, and July 20, 2004. These decisions of the Supreme 10