working as a religious education teacher in schools located in the Diocese of San Bernardo. 16 In the abovementioned communication, it was indicated that the decision was taken in accordance with the norms of canon law and that, after a review of the situation, there had been a conversation with Ms. Pavez. 17 28. In the communication, the vicar also pointed out “as you have observed, as a priest and vicar of this Diocese, I have tried to do everything possible to prevent reaching this difficult decision, noting that the spiritual and medical assistance offered was turned down by you, which I deeply regret.” 18 A copy of this communication was forwarded to the Mayor of San Bernardo and to the Director of the Education and Health Department of this municipality. 19 C. PROCEEDINGS UNDER DOMESTIC LAW 29. Sandra Pavez, the legal representative of MOVILH, and the President of the Teachers Association A.G. jointly filed an appeal for protection against René Aguilera Colinier. 20 The appeal filed was based on the arbitrariness and illegality of the Office of the Vicar’s actions, indicating that it severely breached constitutional guarantees, as it prevented her from exercising her rights, and that the arbitrary discrimination to which she was subjected by the Church has not allowed her to exercise them as guaranteed. 21 30. On November 27, 2007, the Court of Appeals of San Miguel dismissed the appeal as it deemed that the action being appealed could not be qualified as illegal or arbitrary. 22 It pointed out that the legislation itself applicable to the case, that is, Decree 924, authorizes the religious body to grant and revoke the corresponding authorization in line with its principles, a situation that does not allow the state or any individual to interfere with it in any way. 23 The court ruled that “it underlies the cited norm itself that whoever imparts said religion in classrooms must abide by said norms, beliefs, and dogmas and that it does not come under the jurisdiction of state bodies to interfere with or question them.” 24 In that respect, it established that “Decree 924 must be related, in turn, to the standards contained in Articles 803, 804, 805, and 806 of the Canon Law Code, as the latter legal body enshrines the authority of the Catholic Church and its authorities to set the guidelines needed in the matter of disseminating the Catholic faith, in terms of both its contents and the suitability of the persons in charge of teaching the Church’s doctrine.” 25 31. Against the above-mentioned ruling, the attorneys of Sandra Pavez filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of the Republic of Chile. 26 The petitioning party pointed out that the appeal was based on the failure of the Court of Appeals of San Miguel to consider the arbitrariness of the measure adopted by the Office of the Vicar. 27 Annex 5. Communication of July 25, 2007 addressed to Sandra Pavez from the Vicar’s Office for Education of the Diocese of San Bernardo. Annex to the brief of October 28, 2008 from the petitioning party. 17 Annex 5. Communication of July 25, 2007 addressed to Sandra Pavez from the Office of the Vicar for Education of the Diocese of San Bernardo. Annex to the brief of October 28, 2008 from the petitioning party. 18 Annex 5. Communication of July 25, 2007 addressed to Sandra Pavez from the Office of the Vicar for Education of the Diocese of San Bernardo. Annex to the brief of October 28, 2008 from the petitioning party. 19 Annex 5. Communication of July 25, 2007 addressed to Sandra Pavez from the Office of the Vicar for Education of the Diocese of San Bernardo. Annex to the brief of October 28, 2008 from the petitioning party. 20 Annex 1. Official letter No. 840-2008 of May 13, 2008 from the Court of Appeals of San Miguel. Annex to the brief of October 28, 2008 from the petitioning party. 21 Annex 1. Official letter No. 840-2008 of May 13, 2008 from the Court of Appeals of San Miguel. Annex to the brief of October 28, 2008 from the petitioning party. 22 Annex 1. Official letter No. 840-2008 of May 13, 2008 from the Court of Appeals of San Miguel. Annex to the brief of October 28, 2008 from the petitioning party. 23 Annex 1. Official letter No. 840-2008 of May 13, 2008 from the Court of Appeals of San Miguel. Annex to the brief of October 28, 2008 from the petitioning party. 24 Annex 1. Official letter No. 840-2008 of May 13, 2008 from the Court of Appeals of San Miguel. Annex to the brief of October 28, 2008 from the petitioning party. 25 Annex 1. Official letter No. 840-2008 of May 13, 2008 from the Court of Appeals of San Miguel. Annex to the brief of October 28, 2008 from the petitioning party. 26 Annex 1. Official letter No. 840-2008 of May 13, 2008 from the Court of Appeals of San Miguel. Annex to the brief of October 28, 2008 from the petitioning party. 27 Brief of October 28, 2008 from the petitioning party. 16