personnel record of Judge Urrutia Laubreaux. 40 The Supreme Court considered that it was appropriate to reduce the sanction that had been imposed “owing to the evident inexperience of the official concerned (four years of service), as regards the conduct expected of him in relation to his hierarchical superiors.”41 In its ruling, the Supreme Court argued as follows: […] the relevant fact in this case is not the academic nature that can be attributed to the paper written by the judicial official concerned or the fact that, by sending it to this court, the intention may have been to demonstrate completion of the service-related commission authorized by this court. Far from it, rather the sanction responds to the lack of judgment, prudence, moderation and elemental respect and consideration revealed by both the attempt to give instructions to the “highest governing authority of the Judiciary” – in the words of the author – and the fact that the paper contains a veiled criticism of this Supreme Court. […] Regarding the first point, a review of the monograph or paper forwarded by the said judge, “to be made available to the plenum for the purposes deemed pertinent,” reveals that, in this paper, the judicial official allows himself to affirm that this Supreme Court has “the moral duty” to assume a particular attitude, even describing the specific measures that it should take in order to achieve – in his opinion – an “effective moral and ethical repositioning” of this branch of the State as a guarantor of the rights of the citizens. Regarding the second point, it is evident that the foregoing entails a criticism – at the very least an implicit one – of the highest judicial authority. On this basis – and also the declared purpose that these views should be passed on to the plenum of the Court – it must be concluded that the intention was to portray non-compliance with a supposed “moral duty” by the omission or absence of the specific measures proposed.42 65. The Supreme Court concluded that the presumed victim’s conduct violated “the prohibition that article 323.4 of the Organic Code of the Courts imposes on all judicial officials from attacking, ‘in any way,’ the official conduct of other judges or justices. Consequently, based on the provisions of article 544.8 of this Code, the corresponding disciplinary powers must be exercised in this case.”43 Six members of the Supreme Court dissented from this ruling.44 66. According to article 537 of the Organic Code of the Courts, the private reprimand is the lightest sanction that can be applied to judges.45 Regarding the consequences of this sanction, article 278 of the Organic Code of the Courts indicates, in relation to the rating system for 40 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of Chile. Decision of May 6, 2005 (evidence file, folios 41 to 47). 41 Supreme Court of Justice of Chile. Decision of May 6, 2005 (evidence file, folio 43). 42 Supreme Court of Justice of Chile. Decision of May 6, 2005 (evidence file, folios 41 and 43). 43 Supreme Court of Justice of Chile. Decision of May 6, 2005 (evidence file, folio 43). In particular, three justices of the Supreme Court indicated that “although the paper contains criticisms of the Judiciary and, especially, the former Supreme Court, owing to its actions during the period commencing on September 11, 1973, criticisms that have been repeated over time by distinguished personalities, such as the members of the ‘Rettig Commission’ and, recently, the ‘Valech Commission’ whose conclusions were rejected by this Court in a decision of December 9, 2004, it is nonetheless true that, due to the nature of the paper, the fact that its author forwarded it to his hierarchical superior who did not publicize it in any way, and the respect that should be accorded to a document of an academic nature written to pass a course on the matters studied and that was authorized by his hierarchical superior, and the guarantee of freedom of opinion established in the Constitution of the Republic, this should lead to the conviction that, even though one may not agree with his conclusions, it is not appropriate to apply any type of disciplinary sanction on the said judge owing to the paper he wrote because, to the contrary, the Court would be penalizing ideas.” In addition, another three justices issued similar opinions, finding that the facts that were the purpose of the proceedings did not constitute disciplinary offenses and that imposing a sanction violated the presumed victim’s right to freedom of expression. Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of Chile. Decision of May 6, 2005 (evidence file, folios 1030 to 1033). 44 Article 537 of the Organic Code of the Courts establishes: “The offenses or abuses referred to in the preceding article may be corrected by the Appellate Courts by one or more of these measures: (1) a private reprimand; (2) a written censure; (3) the payment of costs; (4) a fine of 1 to 15 days salary or a fine of no less than one or more than five monthly taxation units, and (5) the suspension from functions for up to four months; during this time, the official shall be paid half salary.” Cf. Organic Code of the Courts. Law 7421 published on July 9, 1943, article 537 (evidence file, folio 3984). 45 16