subject to their jurisdiction are respected and guaranteed.83 Judges and judicial organs must prevent potential violations of the human rights recognized in the American Convention, or resolve them at the national level when they have occurred, taking into account the interpretations made by the Inter-American Court.84 It is only if this does not happen that the Court may consider them and, in this situation, it will exercise a complementary control of conventionality. Thus, an adequate control of conventionality at the domestic level reinforces the complementarity of the inter-American system and the effectiveness of the American Convention by ensuring that the national authorities act as guarantors of the human rights derived from an international source.85 94. This Court considers that the decision of the Supreme Court of Chile constituted an adequate and opportune control of conventionality in relation to the sanction of a private reprimand imposed on Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux in 2005, because it recognized, ended and partially redressed the violation of the right to freedom of expression of Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux. The Supreme Court of Chile duly took into consideration the standards developed by the InterAmerican Court in relation to the limits to the restrictions permitted by Article 13 of the Convention in order to, thus, guarantee appropriately the freedom of expression of Judge Urrutia Laubreaux by: (a) annulling the sanction that had been imposed, and (b) ordering its elimination from the presumed victim’s personnel record. 95. Nevertheless, this Court notes that the sanction remained on the personnel record of Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux for more than 13 years and, realistically, this affected his judicial career. In this regard, the Court notes that, according to the laws of Chile in force at the time of the facts, the result of the imposition of a “private reprimand” was that the judge sanctioned could not be included on the list of “Outstanding performances.” Rating judges based on the accumulation of points has a bearing on the priority accorded to them for permanent appointments, on their promotion to higher positions, and on their appointment to different posts.86 In addition, if more than three sanctions are received over a three-year period, this can lead to the removal from the function of judge.87 In this regard, Judge Urrutia Laubreaux Cf. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 128, and Case of Petro Urrego v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 107. 83 Cf. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations, supra, para. 143, and Case of Petro Urrego v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 107. 84 85 Cf. Case of Petro Urrego v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 107. Article 278 of the Organic Code of the Courts indicates, with regard to the system for rating judges that “the judge rated who, during the year under consideration, has been subject to a disciplinary measures, whatsoever the score that he or she has obtained may not appear on the Outstanding performance list and, if they have been the subject of a disciplinary measure greater than a private reprimand, they may not appear on the Very Good performance list. Similarly, the judge who has been the subject of two or more disciplinary measures, provided that none of them was greater than a written censure, may not appear on the Satisfactory performance list; the judge who has been the subject of three or more disciplinary measures, or of two or more if one of them has been suspension of functions, shall be rated on the Deficient performance list. The preceding rules shall also be observed for the organs responsible for hearing appeals. For all legal effects, all those officials who, based on their annual rating, have been included on the Outstanding or Very Good list shall be considered on a merits list.” Also, according to article 281 of the OCC, “the officials included on the Outstanding performance list shall have a preferential right to appear on shortlists of three or five candidates in relation to those on the Very Good performance list; the latter shall have preference to those included on the Satisfactory list, and these to those included on the Regular list. Those included on the other lists may not appear on the shortlists of three or five candidates. If there is equality of points, preference shall be given to candidates by order of their category and, if this is equal, the points earned in the latest rating shall be considered and seniority in the post, among other elements of their professional record.” Cf. Organic Code of the Courts. Law 7421 published on July 9, 1943, articles 278 and 281 (evidence file, folios 3921, 3922 and 3923). 86 Article 80 of the Chilean Constitution establishes: “In all cases, the Supreme Court, as required by the President of the Republic, at the request of the interested party, or ex officio, may declare that judges have not conducted themselves appropriately and, after informing the offender and the respective Appellate Court, as appropriate, decide to remove them by the majority vote of all the members.” Meanwhile, article 337 of the Organic Code of the Courts 87 24