7 coordination that will allow it to comply with the obligation established by the Court as soon as possible.” On October 17, 2007 the Inter-American Commission expressed that it was awaiting the corresponding documents to issue its observation in that regard, and on November 14, 2007 it stated that “[…] it notes with satisfaction the information provided by the State […] with regard to the recent ‘elimination of the cases’ and of the criminal antecedents that fell upon the victim.” * * * 23. That regarding the duty to adopt all the measures necessary to annul and modify the domestic norms that are not compatible with international standards in the matter of freedom of thought and expression, the State informed that “the Executive Power is studying the possibility to present a bill that will clarify or modify the scope of Article 264 of the Criminal Code in the part that refers to the crime of ‘threats’, taking into account the observations and comments stated in paragraph 92 of the [J]udgment.” With regard to the elimination of the crime of contempt of the Code of Military Justice, the State informed that, “[…] said matter is being dealt with by [the Special] Commission [in charge of the reform to military criminal justice].” 24. That the representatives informed that the State “has not presented specific information regarding the measures it will adopt in seeking to prepare the bill and sending it to the National Congress for the study and eventual approval of the mentioned bill” and that “it has not indicated an estimate of time to comply with this obligation.” The representatives observed that even though the Tribunal granted a “reasonable period of time” to comply with this obligation, “the lack of specific steps after a year of the issuing of the judgment and communicating that the possibility of presenting a bill to modify Article 264 of the Criminal Code is being studied are insufficient measures for the satisfaction of the reparations ordered by the Inter-American Court.” 25. That the Inter-American Commission indicated that there is “a lack of specific information on the State’s behalf of the measures tending to effectively comply with this reparation” and that “[i]t is essential that the modifications made as a result of the present case seek the protection of the freedom of thought and expression and that the information presented to the Tribunal establish the specific steps adopted in that sense.” The Commission added that “it knows of legislative initiatives presented since [the time at which] the case was being heard before the Court and it has stated its specific concern regarding the crime of contempt in the Military Jurisdiction, [and that] due to that and to the time that has gone by since the issuing of the Judgment by the Court, [the Inter-American Commission stated that] it is awaiting detailed information regarding the measures adopted by the State as soon as possible.” 26. That the Court values the information provided by the State on the measure tending to the adjustment of domestic legislation to international standards in matters of freedom of thought and expression. In this regard, the Tribunal observes that an important legislative change was ordered to the State and that the reform process is at an initial stage. The Court highlights the need that the State adopt specific measures tending to comply with that established in the Judgment and to offer greater information, especially in reference to: i) the stages of the preparation of the bill that are pending compliance or, in its case, the status of its legislative process; ii) the estimated approximate terms for its compliance; and iii) the content of the reform projects oriented to complying with this aspect of the Judgment. Finally, the Court considers it convenient to remember that the conventional obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the State’s powers and bodies and it points out that this