in the absence of agreement with his conclusions, it is not appropriate to apply a disciplinary sanction to the Magistrate, as this would mean punishing ideas.24 51. Likewise, three other magistrates issued similar opinions, finding that the facts of the process did not constitute disciplinary infractions.25 52. The Commission recalls that the disciplinary measures are placed on the personnel record of the sanctioned individuals, and as noted, the Organic Code of Tribunals establishes that judges are presumed to have committed misconduct when three disciplinary measures have been issued against them over a period of three years. E. Other disciplinary proceedings 53. The Commission observes that following release of the admissibility report, the alleged victim pointed to other disciplinary processes and alleged acts of harassment against him, supposedly for exercising his freedom of expression. 54. He said that in 2006, the Santiago Appellate Court opened a disciplinary proceeding against him because in June of that year, in response to a complaint from an individual deprived of liberty in the Santiago I Pretrial Detention Center, he conducted an special visit to the jail and issued a report—later leaked to the media—indicating that more than 100 people deprived of liberty slept outdoors during the winter. He said the purpose of the disciplinary process was to determine if he had authority to conduct that visit. He said he was acquitted after a year and a half, but the plenary of the Court ordered him to “be more respectful of the government and the Court of Santiago.”26 55. He stated that in May 2008, the Appellate Court launched a new process against him in connection with a complaint filed by the Ministry for Internal Affairs after he rejected criminal suits brought against students for alleged crimes of public disorder in the context of student protests. The objective of the process was to determine if he “had abdicated his role as a judge by becoming a defender of the demonstrators.” The file on the process was later closed.27 56. He stated that in June 2008, the Ministry of Justice filed a complaint with the alleged victim’s ranking superior, the President Magistrate of the Court of Santiago, alleging that the alleged victim tried to visit a Santiago prison with a video camera to record interviews with people deprived of liberty who had previous reported the use of torture at the facility. He said his ranking superior “retaliated” against him for his actions.28 57. He said that he criticized the President Magistrate in his report on his visit to the detention center for having recommended he take certain actions, and that she was later appointed Magistrate of the Supreme Court. He alleged that from her position, the magistrate sought three disciplinary sanctions against the alleged victim with the goal of expelling him from the Judicial Branch, as pursuant to the Organic Code, a judge is dismissed after three sanctions of the course of three years. He said that based on this, he sought unpaid leave and moved to Mexico for three years and nine months, from April 2009 to January 2012. He rejoined the Chilean Judicial Branch in February 2012. 24 Annex 10. ruling of May 6, 2005, of the Supreme Court on the appeal submitted by Daniel Urrutia Laubreaux of administrative proceedings No. 679-2004. Annex VIII to the initial petition of December 5, 2005, and annex to the comments of the State of October 11, 2016. 25 Annex 10. ruling of May 6, 2005, of the Supreme Court on the appeal submitted by Daniel Urrutia Laubreaux of administrative proceedings No. 679-2004. Annex VIII to the initial petition of December 5, 2005, and annex to the comments of the State of October 11, 2016. 26 Brief from the petitioner with comments on the merits of the case, submitted on December 26, 2014. Information in addition to the December 18, 2014, communication. 27 Brief from the petitioner with comments on the merits of the case, submitted on December 26, 2014. Information in addition to the December 18, 2014, communication. 28 Brief from the petitioner with comments on the merits of the case, submitted on December 26, 2014. Information in addition to the December 18, 2014, communication. 9