A/HRC/32/36/Add.1 sanctioned in only 1.5 per cent of these cases. 25 The majority of the cases were reportedly brought before military courts. The Investigations Police of Chile corroborated the figures, but stated that, most often, there was not enough evidence for sanctions to be applied. The police disagreed with the figures cited by INDH, stating that out of 1,000 demonstrations held each year, the police had been found responsible for violations in the context of only three demonstrations. 81. The international community has, time and again, expressed serious concern over this situation for many years. In 2005, the Inter-American Court for Human Rights, in the case of Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile, ordered Chile to limit penal military jurisdiction to matters of a military nature only. 26 The Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture expressed similar positions in 2007 (reiterated in 2014) and 2009, respectively.27 In 2014, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism added his voice on the matter. 28 82. In 2010, a law was passed to remove civilian perpetrators of violence against the police from the jurisdiction of the military courts. However, this reform failed to address violations committed against civilians by members of the police and the military, who remain under the jurisdiction of these courts. 83. In 2014, the Public Prosecutor ordered prosecutors to transmit cases involving the security forces to the ordinary courts, which the Special Rapporteur welcomes. He further welcomes the February 2015 decision of the Supreme Court in the Enrique Eichin case, which ruled that proceedings involving violence by the police against civilians should be conducted by a civilian court, following a similar decision by the Constitutional Court. 84. This is most laudable, but the Government must go a step further and undertake a comprehensive reform of the Code of Military Justice to ensure that military courts no longer have jurisdiction, in cases of violations committed by security forces against civilians. The Special Rapporteur discussed this issue at length with representatives of the Ministries of Defence, Justice and the Interior, which all stated that such reform was a priority for the Government. He was informed that the three ministries were working on a bill aimed at rectifying the situation and returning the police forces to full civilian oversight, as should be the case in democratic societies. However, at the time of the drafting of this report, that is, some seven months after the visit, the bill had not yet been presented to the Parliament. The Special Rapporteur finds this disappointing. He urges the Government to tackle this matter as one of utmost urgency. 85. In the Special Rapporteur’s opinion, the current system — and the impunity it fosters — is among the most visible parts of the legacy of dictatorship in Chile. A comprehensive legislative reform in compliance with international human rights standards would be a landmark achievement and another nail in the coffin of the dictatorship. 25 26 27 28 16 See INDH, Estudio exploratorio, “Estado de Chile y pueblo Mapuche – Análisis de tendencias en materia de violencia estatal en la Región de La Araucanía”, February 2014, chap. 3. See Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile, judgment of 22 November 2005 (merits, reparations and costs), available at www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/ seriec_135_ing.pdf. See CCPR/C/CHL/CO/5, para. 12; CCPR/C/CHL/CO/6, para. 22; and CAT/C/CHL/CO/5, para. 14. See A/HRC/25/59/Add.2, paras. 75 and 96.