35 a right is entitled to move the Court-Martial for acknowledgment thereof, but is not entitled to resort to a court of law.75 With regard to Case No. 465 for another count of disobedience based on new facts and its joinder into Case No. 464 63(38) On March 26, 1993, the Chief of Garrison IM “Orden y Seguridad” (“Order and Security”) signed an acknowledgment of the internal order to transfer PalamaraIribarne to said Garrison, issued by the Office of the Commander in Chief of the Third Naval Zone after Iribarne’s release on bail, in which it was stated that “he [should] keep the judicial proceedings and the ISA [Administrative Summary Investigation] in confidence and that it [was] absolutely forbidden to make critical comments, public or private, written or spoken, that might be to the detriment of or that might harm the image of the Institution, any naval authority, or those carrying out the judicial case and administrative investigations against him.”76 63(39) On March 26, 1993, Humberto Antonio Palamara-Iribarne gave an interview to “La Prensa Austral” newspaper, where he revealed, inter alia, that he considered the ruling of the Court of Appeals of Punta Arena (supra para. 63(36)) “inconceivable.” That same day, a representative of the Military Attorney General’s Office filed a brief with the Court-Martial of the Navy, whereby he stated that the “serious allegations about civil justice administration made by the defendant” against the Court-Martial let us assume that Palamara-Iribarne persists in his “disloyal conduct” toward another government authority such as the Judiciary.77 63(40) On March 31, 1993, Palamara-Iribarne was interviewed by journalists of “La Prensa Austral” newspaper and asserted, inter alia, that the Navy gave him seven days to vacate the state-owned house where he resided and that his wife had reported that “his family was denied access to the hospital of the Armed Forces,” because his name appeared on “a list of people with no access to said institution.” Palamara-Iribarne stated that “such a discriminatory practice [was] unnecessary, particularly concerning the wife of an officer of the Armed Forces.”78 75 Cf. Statement of expert witness Cristian Riego-Ramírez rendered before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights during the public hearing held on May 9, 2005; and order of the Court of Appeals of Punta Arenas of March 24, 1993 (Case No. 464 before the Naval Court of Magallanes on the crimes of disobedience and breach of military duties, appendixes to the complaint, volume III, appendix 9(a), page 872). 76 Cf. Notice of the Chief of Garrison “Orden y Seguridad” (“Order and Security”) of March 26, 1993 (Case No. 464 before the Naval Court of Magallanes on the crimes of disobedience and breach of military duties, appendixes to the complaint, volume III, appendix 9(a), page 1057). 77 Cf. Notice of the Military Attorney General’s Office representative of March 26, 1993 and newspaper clipping entitled “Palamara calificó de ‘increíble’ el fallo dictado por la Corte” (“Palamara says order of the Court is ‘inconceivable”) (Case No. 464 before the Naval Court of Magallanes on the crimes of disobedience and breach of military duties, appendixes to the complaint, volume III, appendix 9(a), pages 895 and 896). 78 Cf. Newspaper clipping entitled “De trato discriminatorio se queja el ex oficial Palamara” (“Former Navy officer Palamara claims discrimination”) published on March 31, 1993, in “La Prensa Austral” (Case No. 464 before the Naval Court of Magallanes on the crimes of disobedience and breach of military duties, appendixes to the complaint, volume III, appendix 9(a), page 1056).