upon the free expression of ideas originated through academic research and production work by imposing a disciplinary measure that affected the alleged victim’s access to a better position in the judiciary. He said this sanction constituted censorship and a disproportionate restriction on the right to freedom of expression. He said his academic work addressed an issue of general interest—the role that the Judicial Branch played during the dictatorship—and that Chilean society has the right to access this type of information. 27. He also alleged that his right to judicial protection was violated in conjunction with the guarantee of impartiality because he did not have access to an effective remedy for challenging the ruling to sanction him. He noted that it was the Supreme Court that ruled on his appeal, the same court that had expressed its opinion when it sent the paper to the La Serena Appellate Court to launch the disciplinary proceeding with the note that it contained “appraisals deemed unsuitable for this tribunal.” 28. He alleged that the State violated his labor rights because the Supreme Court’s decision of May 6, 2005, remained on his personnel record, which will affect his access to promotions and ability to climb the ranks of the Judicial Branch. B. State 29. The State’s response was limited to one page, with annexes. In it, it only addressed the disciplinary process related to the academic paper the alleged victim sent to the Supreme Court and stated that the procedure gave the victim an opportunity to make his pleadings and arguments in his defense, as well as to appeal the corresponding rulings. It indicated that the procedure involved a serious investigation to determine whether the alleged victim was administratively responsible, and that all due process guarantees were respected. III. ESTABLISHED FACTS A. About Daniel Urrutia Laubreaux 30. According to the case file, Mr. Daniel Urrutia Laubreaux began his career in the judiciary as a trial and guarantees judge in the city of Freirina in 2001, in the Third Region of Atacama. In January 2003, he was promoted to guarantee judge in the city of Ovalle, in the Fourth Region of Coquimbo.5 31. In May 2006, he was appointed judge of the Seventh Guarantee Court in the city of Santiago. He belongs to the National Association of Judicial Branch Magistrates of Chile, where he served two terms—in 2007 and 2013—as coordinator of the Human Rights and Gender Committee.6 B. Relevant legal framework 32. Article 79 of the Constitution of Chile7 establishes the following:8 The Supreme Court is entrusted with the administrative, disciplinary, and financial oversight of all the Courts of the nation. 33. following: In the section pertinent to the present case, the Organic Code of Tribunals9 establishes the 5 Brief of the petitioner with comments on the merits of the case, submitted on December 26, 2014. Information in addition to the December 18, 2014, communication. 6 Brief of the petitioner with comments on the merits of the case, submitted on December 26, 2014. Information in addition to the December 18, 2014, communication. 7 Promulgated on October 21, 1980. 8 The content of this article relevant to this case is established in the text of Article 82 of the Constitution currently in force. 9 Law 7421, published on July 9, 1943. 4