89 Judges. 157. The lack of independence of Naval Prosecutors is evident as, for instance, pursuant to Article 37 of the Code of Military Justice they are subordinated to Navy Judges Advocate, who must “[s]upervise the performance of Prosecutors in their pertinent jurisdiction” and may “give [them] instructions […] on how to perform their duties.” Furthermore, the Prosecutor concentrates the duties to investigate and prosecute. The Prosecutor must issue the writ of indictment and charge the accused with the alleged criminal offense, so that the decisions on the necessity and lawfulness of the procedures adopted regarding the evidence and on its weight to prove the commission of a criminal offense are to be taken by the same person, which affects his impartiality. 158. The Court notes that, after disqualifying himself for “having be[en] involved and actively taken part in the facts which gave rise to the indictment” (supra para. 63(25)), Mr. Bruna-Greene sat as Naval Judge in the proceedings brought for the criminal offenses of disobedience and breach of military duty. For instance, he ordered that an investigation be conducted in the proceedings identified as Case Rol No. 465 for another criminal offense of disobedience (supra para. 63(44)), ordered that such Case be joined to Case No. 464 (supra para. 63(48)), granted the extension requested by the Naval Prosecutor so that the investigation proceedings may be continued (supra para. 63(50)), and ordered that the first measures taken in the proceedings brought for another criminal offense of disobedience be joined to Case No. 464 (supra para. 63(53)). 159. As to the other military criminal proceedings brought against Mr. PalamaraIribarne for the criminal offense of contempt of authority, it is a striking fact for the Court that even when the Commander-in-Chief of the Third Naval Zone, Mr. Hugo Bruna-Greene, initially brought the indictment for said offense against Mr. PalamaraIribarne before the ordinary courts, on June 14, 1993, the Court of Appeals, based on the Ley de Seguridad del Estado (State Security Law), found that it had no jurisdiction to hear the proceedings identified as Case Rol 103-93 regarding the above-mentioned complaint (supra para. 63(77) and referred the record of the case to the Naval Judge of Magallanes, “so that it be heard and judgment be rendered.” 160. Upon taking up Case No. 471 for the criminal offense of contempt of authority, the members of the Naval Court of Magallanes prosecuted Mr. Palamara-Iribarne for insulting or offending the Naval Prosecutors, whereby the authorities hearing this case, all of them members of the Armed Forces, were to render judgment over a matter wherein their own interests had been affected, thus casting doubts on the impartiality and independence of the court. 161. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State did not guarantee Mr. Palamara’s right to be tried by an appropriate, impartial, and independent judge in the criminal proceedings brought against him, and therefore, it has violated Article 8(1) of the Convention to his detriment, and has failed to fulfill the general duty to respect and guarantee the rights and freedoms enshrined in Article 1(1) of the Convention. Furthermore, as the Chilean domestic legislation includes provisions which oppose the right to a hearing by a competent court as provided in Article 8(1) of the Convention and which are still in full force and effect, Chile has failed to