84. The general purpose of guaranteeing independence and impartiality is, in principle, a legitimate reasons for restricting certain rights of judges. 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 judge or tribunal.” In this regard, the State has the obligation to establish rules to ensure that its judges and courts comply with these precepts. Therefore, the restriction of some specific conducts by judges in order to protect independence and impartiality in the exercise of justice is in keeping with the American Convention as a “right or freedom of others.”65 The compatibility of such restrictions with the American Convention must be examined in each specific case, taking into account the content of the views and the circumstances. Thus, for example, opinions expressed in an academic context could be more permissible that those expressed in the media. 85. In its case law, this Court has reiterated that Article 13(2) of the American Convention establishes that subsequent imposition of liability for the exercise of freedom of expression must comply with the following requirements concurrently: (i) be previously established by law, both formally and substantially;66 (ii) respond to a purpose permitted by the American Convention (“respect for the rights or reputations of others” or “the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals”), and (iii) be necessary in a democratic society (and therefore comply with the requirements of appropriateness, necessity and proportionality).67 86. In this case, on March 31, 2005, Judge Urrutia Laubreaux was sanctioned with a disciplinary measures of “written censure” based on article 323 of the Organic Code of the Courts, after he had sent the Supreme Court of Justice a copy of an academic paper in which he criticized the actions of that court during the Chilean military regime. This sanction was amended in the decision on the appeal to a sanction of “private reprimand” (supra paras. 62 to 64). 87. On May 29, 2018, in compliance with the recommendations made in the Merits Report in this case, the Supreme Court of Justice decided to annul the sanction imposed on Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux.68 The Supreme Court indicated the following: [O]bjetively, the conduct of Judge Urrutia Laubreaux that was sanctioned in 2005 consisted in sending to the Supreme Court the principal paper of the postgraduate diploma course he undertook in compliance with a service-related commission that this court granted him precisely for this purpose. Therefore, the relevant conduct of the Judge was addressed at demonstrating that he had successfully completely the activity undertaken and, to this end, he forwarded precisely the final paper of the course he had taken. This meant that the tone of the opinions and views expressed in the paper was inserted in a strictly academic context, without evident relationship to the misconducts established in [the] Organic Code of the Courts. […] The 2005 Supreme Court examined a manifestation of the freedom of expression of Judge Urrutia, as a student of a diploma course in human rights that resulted in an academic paper on a matter of public interest in relation to the actions of a branch of the State during a sad period in the country’s history. […] [Therefore, it considers that the] disciplinary measure was not coherent with the conduct on which it was based, because rather that serving as a measure to correct the breach of a functional duty or a matter relating to judicial ethics, its effect was to weaken his rights to 65 171. Cf. Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. Cf. The Word "Laws " in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-6/86, May 9, 1986. Series A, No. 6, paras. 35 and 37. 66 Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 56, and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 104. 67 68 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of Chile. Decision of May 29, 2018 (evidence file, folios 776 to 782). 21