It should be added that the precedent established by deciding the said confidentiality in this Judgment based on “security reasons” that are not explained or reported could be detrimental to the administration of justice by the Court, inasmuch as it could grant a certain margin of doubt to the general public’s assessment of the discretionality of such decisions that could be perceived as arbitrary. And this is especially because the mere general mention of “security reasons” made by the entity requesting the said confidentiality or secret, without specifying what this consists in or is based on, is unreasonable and absolutely insufficient as justification for the Judgment that grants this confidentiality or secret, also without indicating the reasons that warrant it. Conclusion It is based on all the above that I conclude that the request to maintain the confidentiality of the amounts decided in the Agreement could only have been made for it to have effect until the Judgment was delivered, because the Judgment should, evidently, specifically include those amounts and, consequently, they should be public knowledge, particularly to ensure that the judgment may be duly executed and that third parties can assert their rights. The principle of transparency that inspires the proceedings before the Court and all its actions imposes this, with the obvious and justifiable exceptions that occur in certain cases, but which do not exist in this one or, at least, are not recorded in the proceedings, so that they cannot be assessed and understood as grounds for the decision taken. Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary 6