47. On May 6, 2005, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling being challenged but changed the sanction to “private admonishment”21 and ordered that the sanction be included on the alleged victim’s personnel record.22 48. The ruling stated: (...) That what was relevant this case is not the academic nature that may be attribute to the paper written by the judicial official in question nor the fact that in sending it to this Court, the intention may have been to demonstrate having performed the secondment authorized by this Court. Far from it; rather, the censure is for the lack of judgment, prudence, moderation, and basic respect and consideration revealed by both the attempt to give instructions to the “highest governing authority of the Judicial Branch”—in the words of the author—and the fact that the paper includes a veiled criticism of this Supreme Court. (...) effectively, with regard to the former, review of the research or paper—sent by the aforementioned judge “to be made available to the plenary for the purposes deemed pertinent”—reveals that the judicial official states that this Supreme Court has “the moral duty” to take a certain stance, even spelling out the specific measures it should take. The goal, in his view, is the “effective moral and ethical repositioning” of this Branch of State as a protector of the rights of citizens. As for the latter, there is no question it amounts to a censure—at least an implicit one—of the highest judicial authority, as based on the declared objective of sending these proposals to the Plenary of the Court, one can only conclude that the intention was to portray omission or lack of the specific measures proposed as a failure to fulfill a supposed “moral duty” (...). 49. The Supreme Court concluded that the conduct in question violated “the provision in Article 323, paragraph 4, of the Organic Code of Tribunals prohibiting all judicial officials from attacking ‘in any way’ the official conduct of other judges or magistrates. Consequently, in accordance with Article 544, paragraph 8, of the same Code, the corresponding disciplinary authorities shall be exercised.”23 The Court reduced the sanction to “private admonishment,” taking into account that “the severity of the infraction found could be offset by the inexperience of the official (four years in his position) with how he should behave toward his ranking superiors (...).” 50. The Commission observes that six of the 17 magistrates who adopted the decision issued dissenting opinions to the decision. Specifically, three magistrates stated that: although the paper includes criticisms of the work of the Judicial Branch, in particular of the Supreme Court of the time for its actions during the period beginning on September 11, 1973, criticisms that have been voiced over time by distinguished figures, such as the ‘Rettig Commission and, lately, the ‘Valech Commission,’ whose conclusions this Court rejected by agreement on December 9, 2004, it is no less true that, due to the nature of the paper, the fact that the author sent it to his ranking superior, who did not publicize it in any way, the respect that should be granted an academic paper written to pass a course on the paper’s topic and that was authorized by his ranking superior, and the guarantee of freedom of opinion established in the Political Constitution of the Republic, should lead to the conviction that even 21 Annex 10. ruling of May 6, 2005, of the Supreme Court on the appeal submitted by Daniel Urrutia Laubreaux of administrative proceedings No. 679-2004. Annex VIII to the initial petition of December 8, 2005, and annex to the comments of the State of October 11, 2016. 22 Annex 10. ruling of May 6, 2005, of the Supreme Court on the appeal submitted by Daniel Urrutia Laubreaux of administrative proceedings No. 679-2004. Annex VIII to the initial petition of December 5, 2005, and annex to the comments of the State of October 11, 2016; a note dated May 16, 2005, is also on the record indicating: “note for the record that the ruling was included on his personnel record removing the disciplinary measure of private admonishment imposed on Mr. Daniel Urrutia Laubreaux, Judge of the Guarantee Court of Ovalle. Santiago, sixteen of May two thousand and five.” AD-218-2005. 23 Annex 10. ruling of May 6, 2005, of the Supreme Court on the appeal submitted by Daniel Urrutia Laubreaux of administrative proceedings No. 679-2004. Annex VIII to the initial petition of December 5, 2005, and annex to the comments of the State of October 11, 2016. 8