officials from criticizing authorities for their actions or publishing or attacking in any way the official conduct of other magistrates.” 17. He indicated that on April 5, 2005, he appealed the ruling before the Supreme Court, arguing that should the sanction be upheld, it would restrict judges from reviewing past judiciary practices or decisions, and he reiterated that the purpose of his paper was to send a copy and demonstrate the outcome of the course he took during the secondment he was granted. 18. He said that on May 6, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled to uphold the decision and reduce the punishment to a “private admonishment,” on finding that his intention was not to demonstrate the outcome of the secondment granted by submitting an academic paper, but to issue veiled criticism of the highest court. The Plenary ordered that the sanction be included on the alleged victim’s personnel record. 19. He stated that the decision of the Plenary of the court was not unanimous, with 6 of the 17 magistrates dissenting. One of the dissenting magistrates stated that “even 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.” He stated that on June 6, 2005, he was notified of the Supreme Court’s ruling. 20. Elsewhere, following release of the admissibility report, the alleged victim reported on other disciplinary processes and alleged acts of harassment against him. 21. He said that in light of the circumstances, he requested unpaid leave and moved to Mexico to pursue activities related to his experience as a judge in the Chilean adversarial system of criminal justice. He said this lasted three years and nine months. In February 2012, with opportunities to renew his unpaid leave exhausted, he rejoined the judiciary as a judge with the Seventh Guarantees Court of Santiago, continuing with the work assigned to that role. 22. He stated that on September 4, 2013, the Joint Chiefs of Staff appealed a ruling issued by the alleged victim on the right to vote of those deprived of liberty. He said the appeal was made to the Supreme Court to challenge the ruling through a disciplinary process rather than an ordinary process. It asked for “direct corrective administrative actions to be taken as deemed necessary to nullify the orders and actions” of the alleged victim. The petitioner stated that his ruling was overturned, but no information is available as to whether he was sanctioned again. 23. He said this case should be dealt with based on his status as a human rights defender and what should be examined was whether the State’s actions had a chilling effect that could spread to other members of the judiciary. 24. With regard to his rights, he alleges the State violated his right to a fair trial. Specifically, he alleged that the right to defense was not guaranteed because the communication from the Appellate Court dated January 12, 2005, asking him to explain within five days why he had sent a copy of his paper to the Supreme Court, did not include a formal notification of the launch of a disciplinary procedure, nor was any prior communication provided detailing the charges against him. He said he was only given five days to respond, with no preliminary hearing to present his defense, as provided for in Article 536 of the Organic Code of Tribunals. He also alleged that the decisions to sanction him were not well founded. He added that the State failed to comply with its obligation to adopt domestic legal effects because the disciplinary system did not provide due process guarantees. 25. He argued that the State violated the principle of legality because the disciplinary measure applied to him was based on broadly ambiguous grounds and interpreted at the discretion of the authorities, causing a lack of foreseeability as to what could be sanctionable conduct. 26. He said the State violated his right to freedom of thought and expression because sending the paper entitled “Public Policy Proposal for Introducing a Human Rights Focus” was a form of disseminating or communicating his ideas. He said that through the conduct of its Judicial Branch, the Chilean State impinged 3