The biggest problems for the press during this period stemmed from the largely unsuccessful attempts of some judges to prevent it from informing the public. Meanwhile, there is concern over certain legislative proposals and the slow pace of progress in preparing a law on transparency. Below are the major developments: On May 26, 2008, a Santiago judge barred the dissemination of the name and image of Pedro Toledo Barrera, an attorney charged with defrauding a client. The Chilean Journalists Association and the Organization of Judiciary Journalists petitioned the Santiago Court of Appeals for an injunction against the order, and the court unanimously granted the injunction on October 29, declaring it illegal and arbitrary to bar the press from informing the public, and vacating the order on the grounds that it violated constitutional provisions against prior restraint and for the right to inform. Toledo’s defense attorney appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court, which upheld the decision on February 10, 2009. This marks the first time that the Supreme Court has ruled on this matter, and this may very well put an end to judges’ periodic attempts to bar the press from informing the public. On December 1, 2008, a Santiago judge ordered journalists not to disseminate the photograph of a defendant. After a newspaper ran the photo, apparently because it was unaware of the order, the judge barred journalists from entering any courtrooms where he was presiding. The Organization of Judiciary Journalists petitioned the Santiago Court of Appeals for an injunction, which was granted on December 26, 2008. The judge’s order was vacated, but the underlying issue remains unresolved. As we previously reported, a bill sponsored by the Chilean Journalists Association and a broad cross-section of legislators was put forward in 2007 to create a special “journalists’ statute,” which largely set forth professional privileges to be granted to journalists. On January 22, 2009, the Chilean president submitted to the Chamber of Deputies a set of amendments to the bill. These amendments, which have not yet been announced publicly, reflect the criticisms that had been made of the bill. The amendments includes matters such as the intellectual property of journalists, graphic designers, and news photographers over their work; accident insurance for journalists, news photographers, and camera operators injured in the course of their work outside their employers’ facilities; the need for journalists to practice their profession responsibly; and the need to make it a crime to obstruct the work of journalists. Existing general legal provisions may apply to these matters, and so the legislative effort may prove in vain. The Law on Transparency in Public Service and Access to Government Information, which was published in the Diario Oficial on August 20, 2008, is to go into effect on April 20, 2009. So far, the only part of the law to go into early effect is the provision on the appointment of the first members of the Transparency Council, a specialized technical body with essential duties in overseeing the new law and in receiving and ruling on public complaints against government agencies that refuse to provide information. On October 7, 2008, the Senate approved four members proposed by the Chilean president to serve on the council, and on October 29 they began the task of organizing the new entity. The timetable for implementing the new law is relatively short, and the government appears not to have given it the priority it needed; as a result, its provisions may prove ineffectual. The regulations associated with the law have not yet been passed, and while large government bodies have been preparing for “active transparency,” i.e., making their information permanently available on the Internet, there has been no similar preparation for “passive transparency,” which refers to the agencies’ ability to respond to public requests for information. Also, information about the law has not been effectively disseminated within the public sector. As a result, many entities are not well informed of their obligations once the law goes into effect.