X OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS ................................................................................ 40 I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. The case submitted to the Court. On February 1, 2019, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court the case of Daniel Urrutia Laubreaux with regard to the Republic of Chile (hereinafter “the State” or “Chile”). The Commission indicated that the case related “to a series of human rights violations in the context of a disciplinary procedure that culminated with a sanction of censure, later reduced to a private reprimand of Judge Daniel Urrutia Laubreaux for forwarding an academic paper to the Supreme Court of Justice that criticized its actions during the Chilean military regime.” The Commission determined that, during that procedure: (i) the [presumed] victim was not notified that he was subject to a disciplinary procedure, the reasons for this, or the rules that his conduct could have infringed”; (ii) the presumed victim was not subject to an impartial disciplinary authority; (iii) the disciplinary ground applied to the presumed victim was excessively broad, and (iv) he received “an arbitrary sanction that violated the exercise of freedom of expression, by the imposition of subsequent liability that failed to comply with the requirements established in Article 13(2) of the American Convention.” On this basis, the Commission determined the “international responsibility of the Chilean State for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees, the principle of legality, freedom of thought and expression, and judicial protection established in Articles 8(1), 8(2)(b), 8(2)(c), 9, 13(2) and 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument,” to the detriment of Daniel Urrutia Laubreaux. 2. Procedure before the Commission. The procedure before the Commission was as follows: a) Petition. On December 5, 2005, Daniel Urrutia Laubreaux and the Center for Justice and International Law lodged the initial petition. b) Admissibility Report. On July 21, 2014, the Commission adopted the Admissibility Report in which it concluded that the petition was admissible. c) Merits Report. On February 24, 2018, the Commission adopted Merits Report No. 21/18, in which it reached a series of conclusions1 and made several recommendations to the State. 3. Notification to the State. The Merits Report was notified to the State on April 5, 2018, granting it two months to report on compliance with the recommendations. The Commission awarded a total of four extensions to the State, which “presented briefs indicating its willingness to comply with the recommendations,” and advised that, on May 28, 2018, the Supreme Court had annulled the sanction imposed on the presumed victim. Nevertheless, the Commission considered that Chile had “not demonstrated any significant progress to comply with all the recommendations, particularly with regard to reparations in favor of the [presumed] victim.” 4. Submission to the Court. On February 1, 2019, the Commission submitted this case to the Court owing to “the need to obtain justice and reparation.”2 This Court notes with concern The Commission concluded that the State was responsible for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees, the principle of legality, freedom of thought and expression, and judicial protection established in Articles 8(1), 8(2)(b) and (c), 9, 13(2) and 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument to the detriment of Daniel Urrutia Laubreaux. 1 The Commission appointed then Commissioner Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva, then Executive Secretary Paulo Abrão, and the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Edison Lanza as its delegates. It also appointed Silvia Serrano Guzmán, Executive Secretariat lawyer at the time, and Christian González Chacón, Executive Secretariat lawyer as legal advisers. 2 3