42. On January 17, 2005, the alleged victim sent the report requested by the La Serena Appellate Court, stating therein that “the reasons taken into account by the undersigned judge were to demonstrate to the Supreme Court that he had successfully completed the course, inform it of the high grade he obtained, and deliver the final product of his research—that is, the aforementioned paper. It is stated that the aforementioned report is intended to be strictly academic.”17 43. On March 31, 2005, the La Serena Appellate Court sanctioned the alleged victim with the disciplinary measure of a written censure. In the ruling, it stated that: (...) upon reading the paper, it appears its author—a Judge of the Republic—has used it in certain sections on the actions of the judicial branch to make value judgments rebuking or criticizing specific conduct, actions, or omissions by his ranking superiors. He even states that to effectively reposition the Judicial Branch morally and ethically as a guarantor of the rights of citizens, the highest governing authority of the Judicial Branch—that is, the Supreme Court—had the moral duty to recognize clearly and without excuses its responsibility for human rights violations. He even proposes the measures that, in his judgment, the Supreme Court should take. (...). The fact that judge Urrutia Laubreaux made manifest his personal opinion on certain actions and omissions of his ranking superior and even proposed specific activities to amend the actions he criticizes, and to justify making this criticism, used the vehicle of an academic paper, which he specifically sent to the Supreme Court “to be made available to the plenary for the purposes deemed pertinent,” makes it without question expression that is unconscionable and improper coming from a judge of the Republic in reference to the actions of his ranking superiors, thereby violating the principle of the chain of command that governs the legal structure of the Judicial Branch. In addition, it is a violation of the prohibition established in subparagraphs 1 and 4 of Article 323 of the Organic Code of Tribunals of Chile, which in its essence bans judiciary officials from criticizing authorities for their actions or publishing or attacking in any way the official conduct of other magistrates. 44. The Appellate Court found that as it had competence to maintain judicial discipline, in accordance with Article 535 of the Organic Code of Tribunals, “Guarantee Judge of Coquimbo Mr. Daniel Urrutia Laubreaux is hereby given the disciplinary measure of written censure.”18 45. On April 5, 2005, the alleged victim appealed the ruling of the La Serena Appellate Court of March 31, 2005, to the Supreme Court. In the brief challenging the ruling, the alleged victim stated that “the analysis made in the paper, which has not been published, does not refer to any specific official in particular, and especially not to any current officials. Rather, it is an assessment of the Supreme Court’s role as an institution at a historically decisive moment, and it academically recommends and argues that the Supreme Court make a moral recognition (...).”19 46. The alleged victim also stated that “understanding the restriction on criticism that applies to judges as the La Serena Appellate Court does would protect the judiciary’s past practices or decisions from all intellectual inquiry and academic criticism, which in this case was not even made public.” The alleged victim’s appeal requested the “removal of the disciplinary sanction of written censure” and acquittal for that charge.20 17 Annex 7. Report on administrative case no. 679-2004, dated January 17 2005 and signed by Daniel Urrutia Laubreaux. Annex V to the initial petition of December 5, 2005, and annexed to the comments of the State of October 11, 2016. 18 Annex 8. Ruling of the La Serena Appellate Court of March 31, 2005, No. 679-2004. Annex VI to the initial petition of December 5, 2005, and annex to the comments of the State of October 11, 2016. 19 Annex 9. Appeal submitted by Daniel Urrutia Laubreaux of administrative proceedings No. 679-2004. Annex VII to the initial petition of December 7, 2005, and annex to the comments of the State of October 11, 2016. 20 Annex 9. Appeal submitted by Daniel Urrutia Laubreaux of administrative proceedings No. 679-2004. Annex VII to the initial petition of December 7, 2005, and annex to the comments of the State of October 11, 2016. 7