44 due to their very nature can only be committed by active-duty military professionals goes beyond the necessary and natural jurisdiction provided for by the law maker.” Furthermore, on said occasion, the above mentioned counsel subsidiarily answered “the charges brought in the accusatory opinion” (supra paras. 63(60) and 63(61)), holding, inter alia, that the alleged acts “did not constitute a crime” and that an acquittal should be entered, and also produced documentary, testimonial and expert witness evidence, as well as evidence obtained through personal inspection.114 63(66) On June 10, 1996, the Naval Judge of Magallanes, “in agreement with the judge advocate,” handed down a judgment in case Nº 464, whereby defendant Humberto Antonio Palamara-Iribarne was convicted to:115 a) “61 days of [m]inor [m]ilitary [i]mprisonment, in minimum degree, for having committed the crime of [b]reach of [m]ilitary [d]uties” established in section 299(3) of the Code of Military Justice, by having failed to comply with the regulatory procedure set forth in section 89 of the Ordinance of the Navy with “direct malice,” by printing, editing, publishing, promoting, registering and selling the book “Ética y Servicios de Inteligencia” (“Ethics and Intelligence Services”), despite having been refused an authorization to do so; b) 540 days of minor military imprisonment, in minimum degree, for committing the crime of disobedience established in section 337(3) of the Code of Military Justice in relation to section 334 thereof, which makes it possible to “understand the legal definition properly,” by failing to observe an order of the Commander in Chief of the Third Naval Zone of the Navy “to surrender all the copies of the book and other materials used in printing as soon as possible;” c) 61 days of minor military imprisonment, in minimum degree, for committing the crime of disobedience established in section 336(3) of the Code of Military Justice, by breaching an order of the Chief of Garrison IM “Orden y Seguridad” (“Order and Security”) of Magallanes that forbade Mr. PalamaraIribarne from making critical comments (supra para. 63(38)). The Judge considered that Mr. Palamara-Iribarne had breached said order inasmuch as he had issued critical opinions about institutional procedures, which were published in the newspaper “La Prensa Austral” of Punta Arenas on March 31, 1993 and broadcast on radio; d) the additional punishment of loss of military status for committing the 114 Cf. Brief submitted by Mr. Palamara-Iribarne’s defense counsel before the Naval Prosecutor of Valparaíso on February 20, 1995 filing a defense, answering the charges filed by the Prosecutor and producing evidence (Case No. 464 before the Naval Court in and for Magallanes, for the crimes of disobedience and breach of military duties, record of appendixes to the complaint, volume IV, appendix 9.c, folio 1539-1566). 115 Cf. Judgment entered by the Naval Judge and the Navy Judge Advocate of Magallanes on June 10, 1996 (Case No. 464 before the Naval Court in and for Magallanes, for the crimes of disobedience and breach of military duties, record of appendixes to the complaint, volumes IV and V, appendix 9.d, folios 1681 to 1824).