stated that he had “had to live with an unjust sanction within the Judiciary; this has meant that [he] ha[s] been labelled a problematic judge, a maverick judge […], and has also restricted the furtherance of [his] judicial career in Chile.”88 This harm has not been redressed by the State of Chile. Consequently, the Court notes that the violation of the right to freedom of expression of Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux has not been remedied fully. The violation of judicial independence will be analyzed below. 96. Therefore, this Court finds that the State violated 13, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux. VIII-2 RIGHT TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND ALLEGED VIOLATION OF JUDICIAL PROTECTION A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 97. The Commission considered that Chile had violated the right to prior notification in detail of the charges and adequate time and means for defense because: (i) the presumed victim was not notified that he was subject to a disciplinary procedure, the reasons for it or the disciplinary rules that he might have breached with his conduct, and (ii) he was not summoned to a preliminary hearing to present his defense as required by article 536 of the Organic Code of the Courts. Regarding the right to an impartial disciplinary authority, the Commission indicated that the Supreme Court “had already taken a position on whether the fact that the presumed victim had sent his paper to the Supreme Court merited some kind of rebuke” because the Supreme Court had made a value judgment on the content of the academic paper, which it considered “contain[ed] views that this court finds inadequate and unacceptable.” This also meant that the presumed victim did not have an effective remedy to review the decision that sanctioned him. The Commission also stressed that, when hearing the appeal, the Supreme Court of Justice “failed to protect Daniel Urrutia Laubreaux from the violation of the right of defense, as already established, or duly weigh the supposed harm caused by his academic paper in relation to the right to freedom of expression enshrined in the Constitution and the Convention.” The Commission also indicated that “the fact that the Supreme Court of Justice amended the sanction and imposed a lighter penalty does not corroborate the effectiveness of the remedy or its impartiality.” 98. The representatives agreed with the Commission that the presumed victim had not been called to a preliminary hearing and that the disciplinary authority was not impartial, which meant that Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux did not have an effective remedy. They also argued that the presumed victim was not subject to the summary procedure established in article 536 of the Organic Code of the Courts; rather, he was sanctioned without a procedure or proceedings of any kind. They indicated that Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux had not been called to a preliminary hearing to present his defense as prescribed by domestic law. They added that “he was merely required to report on specific situations, within five days,” which could not be compared to a procedural opportunity to defend himself pursuant to Article 8(2)(d) of the Convention. They argued that “[a]rticle 536 [of the Organic Code of the Courts] expressly denied the right to due process of those subject to a disciplinary procedure.” Regarding the establishes: “[i]t will be assumed ipso jure, for all legal effects, that a judge has not conducted himself appropriately in any of the following cases: (i) if he has been suspended twice within a three-year period or three times over any period of time; (2) if he has been subject to disciplinary measures more than three times over a three-year period; (3) if has received a disciplinary correction more than twice within any period of time for improper conduct, for dishonorable conduct, or for habitual negligence in the performance of his functions, and (4) if he has received an adverse rating from the Supreme Court based on the provisions of paragraph 3 of this article.” Cf. Constitution of the Republic of Chile, published on September 22, 2005, article 80, and Organic Code of the Courts. Law 7421 published on July 9, 1943, article 337 (evidence file, folio 3939). 88 Cf. Statement made by Daniel David Urrutia Laubreaux during the public hearing held in this case.. 25