II. POSITION OF THE PARTIES A. Petitioner 6. The alleged victim stated that on March 2, 2004, in his capacity as a guarantee judge for the city of Ovalle, Fourth Region, Chile, he asked the Supreme Court of Chile for a secondment to Santiago to attend classes for a Human Rights and Processes of Democratization certificate program offered by the Human Rights Center of the Universidad de Chile in conjunction with the International Center for Transitional Justice. 7. He stated that on April 8, 2004, the Supreme Court of the Republic granted him the corresponding permission in accordance with the provisions of Article 340 of the Organic Tribunals Code. 8. He said that on November 30, 2004, he submitted a paper to the Supreme Court titled “public policy proposal for introducing a human rights focus to the work of the Judicial Branch of the Republic of Chile,” to demonstrate he had successfully finished the certificate program. 9. Regarding the content of the paper, he said it conducted an analysis of the need to change the structure of the country’s system of justice, suggested reforming the disciplinary regime because it did not comply with due process guarantees, and proposed that judges be selected, promoted, and trained under a new model of administration of justice that was committed to defending human rights, in accordance with the stage of the transition that the State was currently in. 10. He also stated that the paper included proposed actions that the Supreme Court could take, such as recognizing the conclusions of the report from the National Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the report from the National Commission on Torture; issuing a public apology to the victims of human rights violations and to officials who were removed from the judiciary based on their political opinions; and making a clear commitment to guarantees of non-repetition. 11. He stated that on December 20, 2004, the Supreme Court ordered a copy of the aforementioned paper be sent to the La Serena Appellate Court with the note “for your information and all relevant purposes.” 12. He stated that on December 27, 2004, in official letter 6183, the Secretary of the Supreme Court of Justice returned the paper to him with the note “because the referenced report includes appraisals deemed unsuitable for this tribunal. From the Secretary of this Supreme Court by order of the President.” 13. He said that in Official Letter No. 87, dated January 12, 2005, the La Serena Appellate Court asked for information within five days “on the reasons for sending the Supreme Court a copy of the paper” within “administrative case file AD-175-2004 and remitted to this Court for all relevant purposes.” 14. He said that on January 17, 2005, he sent his response, in which he stated that “the reasons taken into account by the undersigned judge were to demonstrate to the Supreme Court that he had successfully completed the course, inform it of the high grade he obtained, and deliver the final product of his research—that is, the aforementioned paper. It is stated that the aforementioned report is intended to be strictly academic.” 15. He said that with no further proceedings, on March 31, 2005, the La Serena Appellate Court ruled to sanction him with the disciplinary measure of a “written censure.” According to the petitioner, the ruling found that the paper submitted “without question includes expression that is unconscionable and improper in the form of a judge of the Republic alluding to the actions of his superiors, thereby violating the principle of the chain of command that governs the legal structure of the Judicial Branch.” 16. He said that a decision by the Appellate Court found “a violation of the prohibitions established in subparagraphs 1 and 4 of Article 323 of the Organic Code of Tribunals of Chile, which essentially ban judiciary 2