46 imprisonment, in minimum degree, for committing the crime of disobedience established in section 336(3) of the Code of Military Justice (supra para. 63(66)(c)); c) to exonerate Mr. Palamara-Iribarne from the punishment of loss of military status for committing the crime of breach of military duties, inasmuch as it is “at the same time, a major military punishment” and it is out of order to punish him in this way and also “make him serve a prison term” (supra para. 63(66)(d)); and d) to affirm the contested judgment and reduce the sentence for the crime of disobedience to 61 days of minor military imprisonment, in minimum degree (supra para. 63(66)). Additionally, the benefit of night imprisonment is replaced with that of conditional pardon; the defendant is thus placed under administrative control by the Chilean Border Police for a one-year term. Defendant shall comply with the duties established in section 5 of Law No. 18,216. 63(69) On January 9, 1997, Mr. Humberto Antonio Palamara-Iribarne’s defense counsel filed a motion for cassation on the merits with the Navy Court-Martial against “the judgment of second instance” rendered by the Court-Martial on January 2, 1997, based on the “erroneous application of criminal law.” Said motion was grounded on section 546(3) of the 1993 Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that erroneous application of criminal law warrants a motion for cassation when “the judgment describes as a crime an act that is not considered a crime under criminal law.” The defense counsel based the motion, inter alia, on the fact that “[a] breach of law was committed when it was reckoned that the defendant was a member of the military, which led to the erroneous application of section 6 of the Code of Military Justice [, …and] allowed behavior that was not criminal to be described as being actually criminal,” an error arising under sections 299(3) and 337(3) of the Code of Military Justice.118 63(70) On January 31, 1997, the Prosecutor of the Chilean Supreme Court of Justice issued an opinion wherein he held that the motion for cassation on the merits should be granted, since “a breach of law affecting the operative part of the judgment had been committed.” The above mentioned Prosecutor pointed out that the purpose of the law maker when drafting sections 6 and 7 of the Code of Military Justice had been “to bring civil servants under the jurisdiction of military criminal courts only for common crimes committed within military premises or during a state of war” and that “writing [a] book was an activity that fell outside Mr. Palamara”-Iribarne’s duties as an employee.119 118 Cf. Motion for cassation filed on January 9, 1997 (Case No. 464 before the Naval Court in and for Magallanes, for the crimes of disobedience and breach of military duties, record of appendixes to the complaint, volume V, appendix 9.d, folio 1829). 119 Cf. Opinion issued by the Prosecutor of the Chilean Supreme Court on January 31, 1997 (Case No. 464 before the Naval Court in and for Magallanes, for the crimes of disobedience and breach of military duties, record of appendixes to the complaint, volume V, appendix 9 d, folios 1847 and 1848).