[ad_1]
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued a ruling regarding the case of Judge Daniel Urrutia, who went to court after denouncing a persecution against him for stating that the Supreme Court should apologize for his role in the dictatorship. For these statements, the magistrate was sanctioned.
In this regard, the Court found “the State of Chile internationally responsible for the violation of the rights to freedom of thought and expression, to judicial guarantees, and to the principle of legality, in relation to the obligation to respect and guarantee said rights. and the duty to adopt provisions of domestic law, to the detriment of Judge Daniel Urrutia ”.
In the sentence, it is indicated that in 2004, the Supreme Court authorized the then Judge of Guarantee of Coquimbo, to attend the “Diploma in Human Rights and Democratization Processes”.
In November of that year, Urrutia approved the diploma course and submitted the final work in which he proposed that the Judicial Power adopt certain measures of reparation for the responsibility that said institution had in the human rights violations.
The Supreme Court sent its work to the competent body to sanction Urrutia, informing him that the Supreme Court had considered that it contained “inadequate and unacceptable assessments” for said court.
The story continued the following year when the La Serena Appeals Court decided to sanction the judge with a disciplinary measure of “written censorship”, which was changed to “private reprimand” after an appeal. In 2018, and in compliance with the recommendations of the Merits Report, the Supreme Court annulled the sanction imposed on the victim.
The IACHR “found that it was not in accordance with the American Convention to sanction the expressions made in an academic work on a general topic and not a specific case, such as that made by Judge Urrutia. On the other hand, the Court considered that, although in In 2018, the Supreme Court of Justice repealed the sanction imposed on the Judge, which remained on Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux’s resume for more than 13 years, affecting his judicial career.
“At no time prior to the imposition of the sanction, Urrutia was informed of the initiation of a disciplinary process against him, of the allegedly infringed rules, nor was he given a clear and specific analysis regarding the application of said rules, which constituted a violation of the guarantee of having prior and detailed information on the process initiated against him, and that the Court of Appeals of La Serena did not give him an opportunity to exercise his right of defense in writing or orally, which constituted a violation additional to the right to defense of the Judge ”, he adds.
For this reason, the IACHR ordered various measures of reparation for Judge Urrutia.
[ad_2]
