The petitioner states than on April 8, 2004, the Supreme Court granted Daniel Urrutia
permission to attend a certificate course on human rights at the University of Chile in Santiago. He alleges that
as a requirement for obtaining the final course certificate, Mr. Urrutia wrote an academic paper called
“Proposed Public Policy for Introducing a Human Rights Approach in the Work of the Judicial Branch in the
Republic of Chile,” which he submitted to the Supreme Court on November 30, 2004. The petitioner indicates
that in this document he proposed on an academic level a human rights approach to the work of the judiciary
in consistency with national constitutional norms and the international system of human rights protection,
suggesting some proposals that did not require legal reforms.
The petitioner maintains that on December 20, 2004, the Supreme Court ordered a copy of his
work to be sent to the Court of Appeals of la Serena (hereinafter the Court of Appeals) “for its information and
relevant purposes.” As a result, the Court of Appeals issued official letter No. 87 dated January 12, 2005,
whereby it asked Daniel Urrutia for a report on what motivated him to send his work to the Supreme Court.
Complying with that request, the alleged victim responded in a brief dated January 17, 2005 indicating that he
sent it to demonstrate that he had completed the course. He also made clear that his work was exclusively for
academic purposes.
The petitioner alleges that, without taking any other steps, the Court of Appeals, proceeded to
issue a resolution dated March 31, 2005 imposing on the alleged victim a disciplinary measure of “written
censure,”2 for violating the alleged prohibitions established under Article 323(1) and (4) of the Organic Code
of Courts.3 Subsequently, the alleged victim states that he filed an appeal against that decision, reiterating that
the purpose of his work was exclusively academic. He states that the Supreme Court of Justice ruled on that
appeal on May 6, 2005, amending the Court of Appeal’s ruling on violation of Article 323(4) and reducing the
sanction to a “private reprimand.” He explains that in that decision the Court felt that his conduct had violated
the prohibition on attacking the official conduct of other judges.
The petitioner argues that the sanction imposed was recorded in the affected party’s
curriculum vitae, which would cause injury to Judge Daniel Urrutia since it could affect his ability to advance
his professional status in the judicial hierarchy.
As for violation of the alleged victim’s freedom of expression, the petitioner states that sending
the work titled “Public Policy Proposal for Introducing a Human Rights Approach in the Work of the Judicial
Branch of the Republic of Chile” to the Supreme Court of Justice is a way to disseminate and communicate Judge
Daniel Urrutia’s ideas. Thus, the petitioner states that the Chilean State, through the actions of its Judicial
Branch, affected the free expression of the ideas that originated in a work based on research and academic
output, through the imposition of a disciplinary measure that causes injury to the alleged victim’s ability to rise
to a better position in the judicial hierarchy. The petitioner asserts that the sanction constitutes censure and
excessive restriction on the right to freedom of expression.
With respect to the alleged violations of the judicial guarantees and the duty to adopt
provisions within domestic law, the petitioner alleges that the disciplinary procedure followed against Judge
Daniel Urrutia failed to respect the standards of due process. In this sense, the petitioner claims that the
procedure provided in Article 536 of the Organic Code of Courts4 does not provide procedural formalities to

According to the petitioner, the sanction is established under Article 537(2) of the Organic Code of Courts.

3 According to the petitioner, Article 323 establishes: “Judicial officers are prohibited from: 1. Directing to the Executive Branch,
to public officials, or official corporations congratulations or criticisms for their actions; (…) 4. Publishing, without authorization of the
President of the Supreme Court, written works in defense of their official conduct or attacking in any way the conduct of other judges or
4 According to the petitioner, Article 536 of the Organic Code of Courts establishes that “(…) Courts of Appeals shall hear and
rule on a summary basis and without trial on the complaints that injured parties file against trial judges for any errors or abuses they
commit in the performance of their duties and, after providing a hearing for the respective judge, shall order appropriate measures to
promptly remedy the injury leading to the complaint.”


Select target paragraph3