80. In this case, the Commission recalls that the alleged victim was sanctioned based on paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 323 of the Organic Code of Tribunals, which prohibits judiciary officials from “Congratulating or criticizing the Executive Branch, public officials, or public entities for their actions” and “Publishing, without authorization from the President of the Supreme Court, writing defending their official conduct or attacking, in any way, other judges or magistrates.” 81. The IACHR underscores the excessive broadness of paragraph 4 of Article 323, especially the part on “attacking in any way” the conduct of judges or magistrates. The Commission finds that this grounds is in itself incompatible with the principle of legality, which, as indicated is applicable to disciplinary procedures and must be applied with particular rigor in disciplinary processes against judges, in light of the principle of judicial independence. 82. The Commission finds that this broadness prevents the alleged victim for having clarity on what the law requires, as it would not be reasonable to infer that a critical analysis of the stance of the Judicial Branch during the military dictatorship could be classified as an attack on one’s superiors. The Commission also notes that the document does not attack or offensively criticize any individuals belonging to the Supreme Court or the Judicial Branch. The Commission thus underscores that the way the disciplinary grounds is worded not only affected to foreseeability of the conduct that is reproachable under the rule but also gives disciplinary authorities extremely broad discretion for deciding what could be considered an “attack.” 83. Based on these considerations, the IACHR finds that the State violated Article 9 of the American Convention, in conjunction with articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Daniel Urrutia Laubreaux. C. Freedom of Thought and Expression51 84. The Commission recalls that freedom of expression is the right of every person, under conditions of equality and without discrimination of any kind. As the case law has held, ownership of the right to freedom of expression enshrined in the American Convention cannot be confined to a specific profession or group of persons, or to the realm of freedom of the press The broad perspective adopted in the American Convention includes public officials, who do not forfeit their basic rights upon taking office; instead they enjoy the same broad freedom of expression that every other person enjoys.52 85. According to inter-American case law, exercise of the right to freedom of expression by public officials, especially judges, has certain connotations and specific characteristics; this right may be restricted if it affects the independence and impartiality that they must have in the cases in which they participate.53 86. In the report on the merits in the case of Adriana Beatriz Gallo regarding Argentina, the IACHR indicated with regard to the freedom of expression of judges that the full exercise of the right to express one’s own ideas and opinions and disseminate available information, as well as the ability to deliberate openly and without inhibitions on matters of public interest are crucial for democratic systems to function properly. For this reason, expression on matters of public interest enjoys greater protection under the American Convention. This means that the State must be especially careful to refrain from limiting these forms of expression. Given the importance of the role of freedom of expression in monitoring public administration, any restriction of political dialogue or issues in the public interest must have a narrow range of application and be strictly necessary in a democratic society. 51 Article 13(2) of the American Convention establishes that “The exercise of the right provided for in the foregoing paragraph shall not be subject to prior censorship but shall be subject to subsequent imposition of liability, which shall be expressly established by law to the extent necessary to ensure: a. respect for the rights or reputations of others; or b. the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals. 52 IACHR Report No. 103/13, Case 12,816, Merits, Adán Guillermo Lopez Lone et al., Honduras, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.149, Doc.27, November 5, 2013, para. 201. 53 IACHR, Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators. Towards strengthening access to justice and the rule of law in the Americas, OEA/ser.L/V/II.Doc.44, December 5, 2013; also see IACHR Report No. 43/15, Case 12,632. Merits (publication) Adriana Beatriz Gallo, Ana María Careaga, and Silvia Maluf de Christin. Argentina, July 28, 2015, para. 234. 14