A. Injured party 159. Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, this Court reiterates that it considers as injured party anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized therein. Therefore, this Court considers Carlos Baraona Bray as the “injured party.” B. Measures of restitution 160. The Commission requested that the State be ordered to annul the criminal conviction against Carlos Baraona Bray, as well as all the consequences derived therefrom. The representatives requested that all records of the criminal proceedings against the victim be expunged. 161. The State argued that said measure is inadmissible, since from the background certificate that has been offered as evidence, it is clear that Mr. Baraona has no criminal record whatsoever. It emphasized that this document is suitable and legally valid to know whether a person has been convicted of a crime or a simple offense, or for the misdemeanors contemplated by law. According to Chilean law, Mr. Baraona cannot be considered a recidivist, either for crimes of the same nature or of a different type. Furthermore, it pointed out that it would be inappropriate to annul the criminal conviction imposed on Mr. Baraona Bray, since the case was definitively dismissed. The conviction in the case under discussion lost all its effects from the moment that Article 398 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was applied. In addition, since the dismissal was issued, the criminal proceedings for the crime of slander were irrevocably terminated. 162. The Court notes that both the representatives in their arguments and the victim at the public hearing, affirmed that it is possible for any person to access the lawsuits filed against him in the case search registry of the Virtual Judicial Office, through the Judicial Branch portal. In this regard, the representatives pointed out that the Chilean legal system establishes rules of disclosure of judicial proceedings,182 with the exception of proceedings that are kept confidential, such as those involving family matters. Article 2(c), final paragraph of Law No. 20.886, in general, establishes that judicial cases are accessible to the public through an online platform provided by the Judiciary.183 In this regard, the State explained that in order to consult cases, it is necessary to have certain precise background information to identify the case to be reviewed.184 It added that the criminal record containing Mr. Baraona’s conviction is not easily accessible via a search on the website of the Chilean Judiciary, given that, as of April 1, 2015,185 the Supreme Court of Chile annulled judicial cases filed under the unique taxpayer identification number (hereinafter “RUT”)] in order to protect the privacy of individuals who are parties to civil, criminal and labor proceedings conducted 182 Law No. 20.886, Article 2(c) final paragraph, states: “Search of cases. The Judiciary shall make available to the public, in its internet portal, a case search system that guarantees full access by all persons to the electronic file in conditions of equality.” 183 According to the representatives, information on judicial proceedings is treated as public under the legal mandate granted to the judicial archivists and the certifying officer of the corresponding record, according to the provisions of Article 453 and following articles of the Organic Code of the Courts. The publication of judicial proceedings is a legal mandate that even the Supreme Court itself has provided for in Resolution No. 85-2019, which establishes the Consolidated Text of the Order for the application of Law No. 20.886 in the Judiciary. 184 Such as: jurisdiction of the court, jurisdiction to which the court belongs, court in which the case is located, and the file number and year of the case. In addition, it is possible to search using other information, such as the name of the parties to the case (natural or legal person), the date on which the case was filed in the court, or the unique tax identification number (RUT) of the legal person that is a party to the case. 185 Record No. 72-2009 of the Plenary of the Supreme Court, available at: https://wwwpjud.cl/institutional/download/1506 47