47 63(71) On August 5, 1997, the Chilean Supreme Court of Justice, one member of which was the judge advocate general, denied the motion for cassation filed by Mr. Palamara-Iribarne on January 9, 1997, since it considered that “section 6 of the Code of Military Justice had not been breached and had been properly applied[,] which means that no error was made in the contested judgment by applying sections 299(3) and 337(3) of [said Code], inasmuch as both sections establish the requirement of being a “member of the military” to become involved in facts that constitute a breach of military duties and disobedience.”120 Proceedings for the crime of contempt: Case No. 103/93 against Mr. PalamaraIribarne brought before the Court of Appeals of Punta Arenas 63(72) On May 6, 1993, Mr. Palamara-Iribarne called a press conference at his house, in which he criticized the actions taken by the Office of the Naval Prosecutor in the proceedings against him.121 63(73) On May 7, 1993, the statements made by Mr. Palamara-Iribarne during said press conference were published in the newspaper “La Prensa Austral” of Punta Arenas. According to the newspaper article, Mr. Palamara-Iribarne affirmed, inter alia, that “freedom of expression [had] been curtailed and repression had been apparently covered up by ‘accusing [him] of breaching military orders and duties’.” He also expressed that “there exist[ed] reasons to believe that the Office of the Naval Prosecutor had faked legal documents and lied to the Court of Appeals when asked about who had filed the complaint that gave rise to the preliminary criminal proceedings and about the roll number of the criminal proceeding with which the investigation was initiated, all of it to avoid an unfavorable judgment.” 122 63(74) On May 25, 1993, the Commander in Chief of the Third Naval Zone, Mr. Hugo Bruna-Greene, filed a complaint against Mr. Palamara-Iribarne with the Court of Appeals of Punta Arenas, accusing him of committing the crime of contempt, established and punished in section 264(3) of the Criminal Code. According to the claimant, Mr. Palamara-Iribarne had made “highly offensive” statements “against [the] Naval Prosecutor of Magallanes.”123 120 Cf. Decision issued by the Chilean Supreme Court of Justice on August 5, 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 1850 to 1862). 121 Cf. Newspaper article entitled “Palamara expresó deseos que pronto su libro pueda ser conocido por comunidad” (“Palamara wished that his book be soon known by the community”) published in the newspaper “La Prensa Austral” on May 7, 1993; and report of the Chief of Garrison IM “Orden y Seguridad” (“Order and Security”) of May 7, 1993 addressed to the Commander in Chief of the Third Naval Zone (case file on the summary administrative investigation, record of appendixes to the complaint, volume II, appendix 8, folios 671 and 672). 122 Cf. Newspaper article entitled “Palamara expresó deseos que pronto su libro pueda ser conocido por comunidad” (“Palamara wished that his book be soon known by the community”) published in the newspaper “La Prensa Austral” on May 7, 1993; and report of the Chief of Garrison IM “Orden y Seguridad” (“Order and Security”) of May 7, 1993 addressed to the Commander in Chief of the Third Naval Zone (case file on the summary administrative investigation, record of appendixes to the complaint, volume II, appendix 8, folios 671 and 672). 123 Cf. Complaint filed by the Commander in Chief of the Third Naval Zone with the Court of Appeals (Case No. 471 before the Naval Court in and for Magallanes, for the crime of contempt, record of