judges, that “the person rated who, during the year under consideration, has been subject to a disciplinary measure, whatsoever the score he or she has obtained, may not appear on the list of outstanding performances.”46 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.”47 67. On May 29, 2018, and in compliance with the recommendations of the Merits Report, the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile annulled the sanction imposed on Judge Urrutia Laubreaux.48 The Supreme Court indicated the following: The 2005 Supreme Court examined a manifestation of the freedom of expression of Judge Urrutia, as a student of a diploma course in human rights that resulted in an academic paper on a matter of public interest in relation to the actions of a branch of the State during a sad period in the country’s history. […] [The] disciplinary measure was not coherent with the conduct on which it was based, because rather that serving as a measure to correct the breach of a functional duty or a matter relating to judicial ethics, its effect was to weaken his rights to freedom of thought and of expression recognized in articles 1 and 19(6) of the Chilean Constitution, as well as at the international level in the American Convention on Human Rights. Accordingly, this Supreme Court observes the pertinence of reconsidering the disciplinary measure applied to Judge Urrutia in 2005, finding that this did not constitute an institutional response in keeping with the basic tenets of the democratic rule of law and, therefore, annuls it. […] Regarding the recommendation that compensation should be provided, pursuant to the functions and authority established for this Supreme Court in the Constitution, the examination of this matter will be postponed until a later date, when it has received the corresponding proposal from its President.49 68. According to information provided by the parties, Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux met with the President of the Supreme Court on at least three occasions.50 However, they were unable to reach an agreement on compensation. VIII MERITS 69. This case relates to the disciplinary proceedings held against Judge Urrutia Laubreaux because he sent the Supreme Court of Justice an academic paper in which he criticized the actions of the Judiciary during the military dictatorship in Chile. The Commission and the representatives argued that: (i) the sanction imposed on Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux constituted an arbitrary restriction of his exercise of freedom of expression; (ii) the proceedings violated the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, and (iii) the wording of the disciplinary grounds applied to the presumed victim was excessively broad, so that the sanction was not predictable. The State, for its part, argued that, pursuant to the principle of complementarity, it was not possible for the Court to hear this case. 70. Taking into account the arguments of the parties and the Commission, the Court will proceed to examine: (i) the alleged violation of the right to freedom of thought and expression and the possible application of the principle of complementarity in this case; (ii) the alleged violation of judicial guarantees and judicial protection, and (iii) the alleged violation of the principle of legality and the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions. 46 3921). Cf. Organic Code of the Courts. Law 7421 published on July 9, 1943, article 278 (evidence file, folios 3920 and 47 Cf. Organic Code of the Courts. Law 7421 published on July 9, 1943, article 281 (evidence file, folio 3922). 48 Supreme Court of Justice of Chile. Decision of May 29, 2018 (evidence file, folios 776 to 782). 49 Supreme Court of Justice of Chile. Decision of May 29, 2018 (evidence file, folio 778). 50 Cf. Brief sent by the representatives to the Commission on August 16, 2018 (evidence file, folio 389). 17