Article 323. Judiciary officials are prohibited from: 1 °. Congratulating or criticizing the Executive Branch, public officials, or public entities for their actions; (…), and 4 °. Publishing, without authorization from the President of the Supreme Court, writing defending their official conduct or attacking, in any way, other judges or magistrates. Art.535. Appellate Courts are responsible for maintaining judicial discipline throughout the territory of their corresponding jurisdictions, immediately supervising the conduct of their magistrate members and junior judges, and ensuring compliance with all the duties required of them by the law (...) Art. 536: Pursuant to the authority ascribed in the previous article, Appellate Courts will hear and settle—without trial—the complaints brought by injured parties against judges for any shortcoming or abuses they may have committed during the course of the performance of their duties; and, following a hearing with the judge in question, will hand down the measures necessary to quickly address the misconduct that led to the complaint. Art. 537: The shortcomings or abuses referred to in the foregoing article can by corrected by the Appellate Courts through one or more of the following measures: 1. Private admonishment 2. Written censure (...). Article 337. For all legal purposes, a judge is assumed to be performing poorly in any of the following cases: (...) 2 °. If more than three disciplinary measures are ordered against a judge over a period of three years; (...) Article 551. The only remedy to which rulings handed down by single judge and multi-judge courts in their exercise of their disciplinary authorities are subject to is appeal. (...) C. Academic work of the alleged victim 34. According to the case file, on April 8, 2004, the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile authorized the alleged victim to attend the Human Rights and Processes of Democratization certification program offered by the Universidad de Chile Law School and the International Center for Transitional Justice10from March 29 to September 10, 2004. 35. On November 30, 2004, the alleged victim informed the Supreme Court that he had passed the certificate program and submitted his final paper, titled “Public Policy Proposal for Introducing a Human Rights Focus to the Work of the Judicial Branch of the Republic of Chile,” with the note “to be made available to the plenary for the purposes deemed pertinent.”11 36. The paper propose that the Judicial Branch adopt a human rights focus and made a series of criticisms of its actions, specifically with regard to its role during the Chilean military dictatorship. Specifically, the alleged victim’s paper stated that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission found that “the Judicial Branch did not react vigorously enough to human rights violations which, along with other factors, prevented it from effectively protecting the essential rights of persons (…).” He stated that its attitude “aggravated the process of 10 Annex 1. Official Letter No. 3690 of April 12, 2004, addressed to Judge Daniel Urrutia Laubreaux and signed by the Secretary of the Supreme Court of Chile. Annex 1 of the initial petition of December 5, 2005. 11 Annex 2. Official Letter No. 242 of April 30, 2004, addressed to the President of the Supreme Court and signed by Judge Daniel Urrutia Laubreaux. Annexed to the comments from the State dated October 11, 2016. 5