61. On January 13, 2005, the Appellate Court of La Serena officially notified the presumed victim to provide a “report on the reasons why he had sent the Supreme Court a copy of his final paper.”34 On January 18, 2005, Judge Urrutia Laubreaux sent the requested report, indicating that “the undersigned judge’s reasons were to demonstrate to the Supreme Court that he had completed the course successfully, and also the excellent note he had obtained, and to provide the final outcome of his studies: namely, the said report. It is hereby noted that the said report was prepared for strictly academic purposes.”35 62. On March 31, 2005, the Appellate Court of La Serena decided to sanction the presumed victim with a disciplinary measure of “written censure” in application of paragraphs 1 and 4 of article 323 of the Organic Code of the Courts.36 Regarding the academic paper written by Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux, the Appellate Court stated the following: […] from reading the paper, it appears that its author – a judge of the Republic – has taken advantage of this medium, in certain sections on the actions of the Judiciary, to make value judgments reproaching or censuring specific conducts, acts or possible omissions of his hierarchical superiors, even going as far as to affirm that, to ensure an effective moral and ethical repositioning of the Judiciary as guarantor of the rights of the citizenry, its highest governing authority – the Supreme Court – had the moral obligation to recognize clearly and without excuses its responsibility for human rights violations, and also proposing measures that, in his opinion, the highest court of justice should take. […] The fact that Judge Urrutia Laubreaux has expressed his personal opinion concerning certain acts and omissions of his hierarchical superior, even proposing specific actions to rectify the conduct he criticizes and, to express these criticisms, has used a report that he justifies by affirming that it was prepared for academic purposes, but which he specifically forwarded to the Supreme Court “to be made available to the plenum for the purposes deemed pertinent,” undoubtedly signifies an excessive assertion from a judge of the Republic when referring to actions of his hierarchical superiors, thereby violating the principle of respect for a higher authority that permeates the Judiciary’s structural regulations and is also, strictly speaking, a violation of the prohibitions established in paragraphs 1 and 4 of article 323 of the Organic Code of the Courts, which prohibits judicial officials from criticizing the authorities for their actions or publishing, or in any way attacking, the official conduct of judges or justices.”37 63. On April 5, 2005, Judge Urrutia Laubreaux filed an appeal with the Supreme Court contesting the decision that sanctioned him and requesting the annulment of the disciplinary sanction.38 In his appeal, Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux expressed his disagreement with the sanction imposed, indicating that he had “never had the intention to address public criticisms or attacks against [his] hierarchical superiors and, particularly, to violate article 323 of the Organic Code of the Courts because, the analysis made in the paper in question – which had not been published – did not refer to any authority in particular, especially to current authorities; rather it gave an opinion on the role of the Supreme Court, as an institution, at a specific historical moment.” He also explained that he had sent a copy of the paper in order to validate the results of the course.39 64. On May 6, 2005, the Supreme Court confirmed the contested decision, but reduced the sentence to a “private reprimand” and ordered that the sanction imposed be entered on the 34 28). Cf. Letter signed by the President of the Appellate Court of La Serena of January 12, 2005 (evidence file, folio 35 Cf. Report signed by Daniel David Urrutia Laubreaux of January 18, 2005 (evidence file, folio 30). 36 Cf. Appellate Court of La Serena. Decision of March 31, 2005 (evidence file, folios 32 to 36). 37 Appellate Court of La Serena. Decision of March 31, 2005 (evidence file, folios 33 and 34). Appeal filed by Daniel David Urrutia Laubreaux with the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile on April 5, 2005 (evidence file, folios 38 and 39). 38 Appeal filed by Daniel David Urrutia Laubreaux with the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile on April 5, 2005 (evidence file, folios 38 and 39). 39 15