58 decided that said benefit “is only in order when the official has changed his habitual residence, a requirement which is not met if the hired person moves to another place within the same city;” hence, “he [was] not entitl[ed] to request [said] benefit;” c) the legality of the seven-day term to leave the “subsidized dwelling”. In this respect, the Legal Division of the Comptroller’s Office considered that, under the Rules on Subsidized Housing of the Navy, “civil servants are not entitled to use subsidized dwellings. Nonetheless, as an exception, [...] a relevant authority may, in consultation with the Dirección de Bienestar de la Armada (Navy Welfare Board), allocate subsidized dwellings to these officials.” Therefore, Mr. Palamara-Iribarne “was only entitled to the benefit of [inhabiting a subsidized dwelling] while he worked as a Navy officer [,...] and the term granted by his employer to restore said dwelling was reasonable;” and d) the legality of the reductions applied to Mr. Palamara-Iribarne’s wages in April 1993. In this respect, the Legal Division held that said reductions were “reimbursements of sums which had been unduly paid in January and February 1993,” since he had been paid as a Lieutenant Commander and not as a civil servant hired as a contractor. 63(111) Following the facts of the instant case, Mr. Palamara-Iribarne had difficulty in finding a job, for after he stopped serving in the Navy for having been convicted by a military court, shipping companies closed their doors on him, preventing him from working as a naval mechanical engineer. Besides, his social and family relationships changed, since many of his friends were from the Navy. Additionally, there is a Navy member in most families living in Viña del Mar, so, for the community, breaching the national security is “wrong in itself.”171 Costs and Expenses 63(112) Mr. Palamara-Iribarne incurred expenses in the processing of the cases in which he was involved at the domestic level, and the representatives and the alleged victim incurred a number of expenses during international proceedings. VII VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 1(1) AND 2 THEREOF (FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION) 64. Arguments by the Commission a) the State engaged in acts of prior censorship that are incompatible with Article 13(2) of the American Convention insofar as, in March 1993, officers of 171 Cf. testimony of Mr. Humberto Palamara-Iribarne, taken before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing held on May 9, 2005; affidavit signed by Ms. Anne Ellen Stewart-Orlandini on April 2, 2005; affidavit signed by Mr. Antonio Palamara-Stewart on April 21, 2005; affidavit signed by Mr. Fernando Alejandro Palamara-Stewart on April 21, 2005; and affidavit rendered by Mr. Raimundo Jesús Palamara-Stewart before an officer authorized to administer oaths on April 21, 2005 (case file on the merits, reparations, and costs, volume II, folios 456-458, 569, 573 and 574).