13 as contractors render services “on a temporary status.” Furthermore, Section 6 of the Code of Military Justice sets forth that those who are subject to the rank or personnel regulations of the Army, Navy, Air Force or Police, and students attending the last two years at any Armed Forces school will be considered military officers. Moreover, the civil servants listed in rank regulations who enroll as personnel of the Armed Forces will only be subject to military jurisdiction if they commit a common crime “during a state of war or campaign,” while on duty, inside “military premises” or upon committing military crimes that do not depend on military status to be considered as such; for instance “theft of military species.” b) Proposed by the representatives of the alleged victim: 3. María Inés Horvitz, lawyer The scope of military jurisdiction in Chile is the broadest within Latin America as regards trials on civilians, given that Section 5 of the Code of Military Justice of Chile defines military crimes and lists those who shall be considered military officers pursuant to Sections 6 and 7 of said Code. The military proceedings initiated from 1990 to 1996 include a much larger number of civilians than military officers as defendants. Mrs. Horvitz believes that the prohibition against book publication contained in Section 89 of the Ordinance of the Navy is unconstitutional and “shall not apply […] to civil servants hired as contractors.” Since said section has not been declared unconstitutional, it should be construed restrictively and should only be enforced regarding military officers. The judges, prosecutors and judge advocates that compose the military justice system of Chile are individuals on active duty; they belong to a special hierarchical structure within military justice that is subordinated and dependent within the military system. Military judges do not undergo technical training to hold that position. In practice, judge advocates, who are lawyers, “render” judgment but are subject to military rule; thus they lack independence and impartiality. Prosecutors are lawyers but “they rank lower than judges and advocates.” The procedure for removal is subject to the criterion of the superior officer. Very frequently “prosecutors are removed from an investigation ‘due to military reasons,’ no further explanations being provided.” As a result of this, the guarantees on the availability of a competent judge previously established by law and on the irremovability of judges from the bench are not satisfied. The headquarters of the Navy Court-Martial are in Valparaíso and the Court is composed of two Justices from the Court of Appeals of Valparaíso, appointed upon an annual drawn; a general Navy judge advocate general and a navy active-duty officer in that institution. In 1991, an attempt was made to offer greater independence and impartiality to the active military members of Courts-Martial through a legal amendment that “guaranteed the irremovability of the members of these tribunals who are not justices of the Courts of Appeal, [...] for a term of three years after they took up their position.”