systematic violation of human rights by failing to provide protection in the cases reported and gave the agencies conducting the repression confidence that their illegal actions would remain in impunity.” 37. Based on the findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the alleged victim’s paper stated the following: To effectively reposition the Judicial Branch morally and ethically as a protector of the rights of citizens, the highest governing authority of the Judicial Branch has the moral duty, given current political viability, to recognize clearly and without excuses the State’s responsibility in the extremely grave human rights violations described in the Commission’s conclusions. We honestly believe this is the only way for the judiciary to begin winning back the community’s trust that it lost during the dark night for human rights that was the violation of human rights during the military regime.12 38. The alleged victim also proposed that the Judicial Branch take the following measures: “a. a public act of recognition by the plenary of the Supreme Court of the National Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the National Commission on Torture’s conclusions regarding the Judicial Branch. b. A public apology to the more than 3000 people who were victims of human rights violations in the form of disappearances and their families and Chilean society as a form of symbolic reparations for the Judicial Branch’s responsibility in those violations. c. a public act of recognition for the functionaries, judges, rapporteurs, and magistrates dismissed from the Judicial Branch for their political opinions or for what others thought were their political opinions. (...) d. a clear commitment to guarantees of non-repetition (...) the proposal is for the creation of a Special Secretariat within the Office of Supreme Court Studies that would be in charge of implementing and then evaluating the measures deemed necessary to introduce a human rights focus into the Chilean Judicial Branch.”13 D. Disciplinary process initiated against the alleged victim 39. On December 22, 2004, the Secretary of the Supreme Court sent the La Serena Appellate Court “records on a report sent to this Court by Mr. Daniel Urrutia Laubreaux, Judge of the Guarantee Court of Ovalle.”14 40. In a letter dated December 27, 2004, from the Secretary of the Supreme Court, the alleged victim was informed that “pursuant to the orders of the Plenary of this Court, the so-called ‘final paper’ sent is hereby returned (...). This is because the referenced report includes appraisals deemed unsuitable and unacceptable for this tribunal. From the Secretary of this Supreme Court by order of the President.”15 41. On January 12, 2005, the president of the La Serena Appellate Court sent an official letter to the alleged victim stating that “it has been ordered that you be asked for information on your reasons for sending the Supreme Court a copy of your report, ‘Public Policy Proposal for Introducing a Human Rights Focus to the Work of the Judicial Branch of the Republic of Chile,’ which it received and filed under administrative case file AD-175-2004, sent to this court for the requisite purposes, and for which a response is required within five days (...)”16 The alleged victim was notified of the official letter on January 13, 2005. 12 Annex 3. “Public Policy Proposal for Introducing a Human Rights Focus to the Work of the Judicial Branch of the Republic of Chile.” Annex II to the initial petition of December 5, 2005, and annex to the comments of the State of October 11, 2016. 13 Annex 3. “Public Policy Proposal for Introducing a Human Rights Focus to the Work of the Judicial Branch of the Republic of Chile.” Annex 2 of the initial petition of December 5, 2005. 14 Annex 4. Official Letter No. 6151, Administrative Record. AD-175-2004 of December 22, 2004, addressed to the President of the Appellate Court signed by the secretary of the Supreme Court. Annexed to the comments from the State dated October 11, 2016. 15 Annex 5. Official Letter No. 6183 of December 27, 2004, addressed to Judge Daniel Urrutia Laubreaux and signed by the Secretary of the Supreme Court of Chile. Annex 3 of the initial petition of December 5, 2005. 16 Annex 6. Official Letter No. 87 January 12, 2005, addressed to Judge Daniel Urrutia Laubreaux and signed by the President and Secretary of the La Serena Appellate Court. Annex 4 of the initial petition of December 5, 2005. 6