VIII-1 RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION Arguments of the parties and the Commission 71. The Commission determined that the State had “placed an arbitrary restriction on the exercise of freedom of expression by imposing subsequent liability that failed to comply with the requirements established in the Convention.” In this regard, the Commission indicated that: (i) the disciplinary grounds applied to the presumed victim did not comply with the principle of legality, and this was sufficient to declare that they violated the right to freedom of expression of Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux; (ii) the objective sought of “hierarchical respect” cannot be understood as one of the legitimate purposes established in Article 13(2) of the American Convention to justify the imposition of subsequent liability, and (iii) there is no relationship of means to an end between the restriction applied to the production of an academic paper and the end sought; thus, the requirement that the measure must be necessary in a democratic society was not met, Moreover, “the opinions and statements contained in the academic paper are of public interest and, therefore, must be rigorously protected to the extent that they contribute to the debate on the way in which the Judiciary should respond to allegations of serious human rights violations.” 72. The representatives argued that “the opinion of Judge Urrutia Laubreaux on the role of his country’s Judiciary during the time of the dictatorship was not a private matter and did not relate to a specific person; rather, it concerned a matter of general interest, relating to the construction of a democratic state and society, that should not have been penalized.” They also argued that “the sanction imposed by the Chilean Judiciary was inappropriate because the views of Judge Urrutia Laubreaux were not expressed in relation to a case that he was hearing.” They indicated that “the restriction imposed by the Chilean State, without any legal grounds, does not reveal that it was in any way necessary in the context of a democratic society.” 73. The State argued that the Supreme Court had annulled the decision that gave rise to this litigation and, since 2005, “no judge of the Republic […] has been sanctioned by the application of article 323.4 of the OCC.” Therefore, it indicated that “there was no need for the Inter-American Court to exercise its jurisdiction in this case.” The State also indicated that it had not been possible to reach an agreement with the presumed victim concerning pecuniary reparation. 74. In addition, the State argued that “freedom of expression is not absolute in the case of judges”; therefore, “every Chilean judge must abide by one of the limits to freedom of expression that is established in article 323.4 of the OCC.” Chile indicated that, “under the laws of Chile [the Organic Code of the Courts] is equivalent to a constitutional law” and, thus, meets the requirement of legality inherent in any legitimate restriction of freedom of expression. The State also argued that the law applied in this case was justified by the legitimate purpose of “preventing conflicts within the Judiciary that could affect the credibility of the judicial function in the eyes of the citizenry, prejudicing the legitimacy of the judicature and thereby threatening its independence.” Consequently, “the publication by judges of texts whose purpose is to attack other judges evidently gives rise to a situation of internal tension that ends up by affecting the whole Judiciary.” The Chilean State stressed that “the restriction imposed by article 323.4 of the OCC on the freedom of expression of judges is necessary in the context of a democratic society such as that of Chile” because: “(i) it is in keeping with the legitimate purpose that it seeks to fulfill, and (ii) it is strictly proportionate to the end sought.” Chile clarified that “any judge who seeks to make intemperate criticisms of his peers – ‘attacks’ in the words of article 323.4 of the OCC – must previously request the authorization of the Supreme Court.” Lastly, the State argued that its international responsibility in this 18