182. In the instant case, the Supreme Court of Justice considered that the judges of the Appeals Court of Temuco “committed a fault or abuse both in applying the legal provisions that govern the matter, and in assessing the background of the case in which they issued the judgment that gave rise to the remedy [of complaint]” 202. 183. In this regard, the Court noted that the argument of the representatives regarding the wrongful acceptance of the remedy of complaint by the Supreme Court of Justice is directly related to the alleged non-existence of a grave fault by the Court of Appeals of Temuco. In this regard, it should be noted that the recurso de queja (remedy of complaint) in Chile is established in Article 545 of the Organic Code of Courts.203 It is a disciplinary remedy that has its source in Article 82 of the Constitution204 and, in general is based on the jurisprudential practice of the Superior Courts of Justice, the Courts of Appeals, and the Supreme Court of Justice.205 184. In the opinion of the expert Marín, the practice of using the remedy of complaint as a means to have judgments revised distorted the procedural system by using the cassation appeal, as the natural jurisdictional appeal established in domestic law, to correct the errors of lower court judges.206 According to the expert, the complaint appeal caused de facto the creation of a third instance, where the Supreme Court distorted the facts proven in the respective court and the way in which the judges had assessed said evidence.207 202 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, May 31, 2004 (record of appendices to the petition, volume V, page 2673). 203 Cf. Article 545 of the Organic Code of Courts states: The sole purpose of the recurso of queja (remedy of complaint or complaint appeal) is to correct serious faults or abuses committed in the issuance of a jurisdictional ruling. It shall only be admissible when the fault or abuse is committed in an interlocutory decision that puts an end to the case or makes its continuation impossible, and there is no ordinary or extraordinary remedy available, without prejudice to the ability of the Supreme Court to act ex officio in the exercise of its disciplinary powers. Final, first or single-instance rulings issued by arbitrators are excepted, in which case the recurso of queja shall be admissible, in addition to the cassation appeal with respect to procedure. The decision that accepts the recurso of queja shall contain precise considerations to demonstrate the fault or abuse, as well as the obvious and serious errors and omissions that constitute them and that exist in the decision that produces the recurso, and shall determine the measures conducive to remedying said fault or abuse. In no case may it modify, amend, or invalidate judicial decisions with respect to which the law provides ordinary or extraordinary jurisdictional remedies, unless a recurso of queja filed against a first or single instance final decision issued by arbiters or arbitrators is involved. In the event that a superior court of justice, making use of its disciplinary authorities, annuls a jurisdictional ruling it must apply the disciplinary measure or measures considered appropriate. In the event that a superior court, making use of its disciplinary powers, invalidates a jurisdictional decision, it shall apply the relevant disciplinary measure or measures. In such case, the chamber shall provide that the full court is informed regarding the history for purposes of imposing the appropriate disciplinary measures, given the nature of the faults or abuses, which may not be less than a private admonition” (record of merits volume XI, page 5398). 204 Article 82 of the Political Constitution states that “the Supreme Court is entrusted with the executive, correctional and economic supervision of all the Courts of the nation. The Constitutional Court, the Elections Qualifying Court and the Regional Electoral Courts are excepted from this norm” (record of merits, volume XI, page 5393). 205 Cf. Written report of the expert Dr. Juan Carlos Marín González on complaint appeals in Chile (record on merits, volume XI, page 5393 and 5411). 206 Cf. Written report of the expert Dr. Juan Carlos Marín González on complaint appeals in Chile (record on merits, volume XI, page 5411). 207 In this regard, expert Marín cited the legislative reasons for the approval of law 19.374 of 1995, which modified the complaint appeal and jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Justice, to explain that Chilean legislators modified the complaint appeal with the objective of limiting this disciplinary recourse and preventing the distortion of the procedural system and of the jurisdictional function of the superior courts of justice, in order to prevent abusive practices and, therefore, the revision of trials through a third instance that openly breaches the principle of bilateralism of the hearing. Cf. Written report of the expert Dr. Juan Carlos Marín González on the complaint appeal in Chile (record on merits, volume XI, page 5397, 5398, and 5400). 58