note he had obtained, and to deliver the final product of his studies: namely, the said paper. It is noted that this paper was written strictly for academic purposes.” 112 After receiving this report, on March 31, 2005, the Appellate Court of La Serena sanctioned Judge Urrutia Laubreaux with a disciplinary measure of “written censure” considering that the content of the academic paper of Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux constituted “a violation of the prohibitions contained in paragraphs 1 and 4 of article 323 of the Organic Code of the Courts.”113 115. The Court notes that at no time prior to the imposition of the sanction was Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux informed that a disciplinary procedure had been opened against him, or of the rules he had presumably violation, and he was not offered a clear and specific analysis with regard to the application of such rules. A reading of the official letter sent to the presumed victim fails to clarify the specific reason why the Appellate Court asked Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux to provide information on the reasons for forwarding his academic paper to the Supreme Court. Consequently, the presumed victim was not aware that he was undergoing a disciplinary procedure, or of the facts of which he was accused. This lack of information constituted a violation of the guarantee of receiving prior detailed information on the proceedings brought against him contained in Article 8(2)(b) of the American Convention. 116. In addition, article 536 of the Organic Code of the Courts requires that, in disciplinary procedures, the accused judge is given a hearing. This article indicates that “Appellate Courts shall hear and settle, in a summary manner, rather than in the form of a trial, the complaints brought by injured parties against judges for any errors or abuses they may have committed in exercise of their functions and, following a hearing with the judge in question, will hand down the appropriate measures to promptly address the wrongdoing that led to the complaint.”114 The State clarified that “in 2005, disciplinary proceedings were governed by the principle of the written procedure, so that the terms used in the OCC, such as ‘shall hear,’ allude to the bilateral nature of the hearing, which under the procedure in force at that time was only in writing.” 117. In this regard, there is no record in the case file that the Appellate Court of La Serena gave Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux an opportunity to exercise his right to defend himself either orally or in writing. Indeed, the only participation allowed to Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux was to present a report on the reasons why he had forwarded the academic paper to the Supreme Court of Justice. However, as a result of the lack of clarity regarding why he had been asked to present this report, it did not constitute an opportunity to exercise his right of defense. In fact, in the report he submitted, Judge Urrutia Laubreaux made no mention of the disciplinary proceedings and did not present any type of defense; rather, he merely explained that he had forwarded this paper to the Supreme Court of Justice to demonstrate that he “had completed the course, the high note obtained, and to deliver the final product of his studies.” Therefore, the inexistence of an opportunity to defend himself constituted a violation of the right of Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux to defend himself contained in Article 8(2)(c) of the American Convention. B.2. Right to an impartial disciplinary authority 118. Article 8(1) of the American Convention establishes that “[e]very person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal.” The guarantee of impartiality requires that the judge who intervenes in a particular dispute must approach the facts of the case free of any subjective prejudice and also offer sufficient objective guarantees to exclude any doubt that the justiciable or the community 112 Cf. Report signed by Daniel David Urrutia Laubreaux of January 18, 2005 (evidence file, folio 30). 113 Appellate Court of La Serena. Decision of March 31, 2005 (evidence file, folios 33 and 34). 114 Organic Code of the Courts. Law 7421 published on July 9, 1943, article 536 (evidence file, folio 3983). 30