established in articles 296 and 297 thereof, except when the said acts are carried out, fulfilling the requirements of seriousness and credibility established in the said articles, against an individual entrusted with special official functions”; in other words, a member of the Armed Forces or the Police Force in the exercise of his duties. 8. Regarding the offense of disrespect for authority, the representatives observed that the bill proposed in order to repeal this offense in the Code of Military Justice was withdrawn from the legislative process in September 2010; thus, the offense continues in force. Consequently, the representatives indicated the need to place this issue among the Administration’s priorities, because “the possibility of disproportionate punishments for criticizing the functioning of the State institutions and their members remains, together with greater protection for military institutions and their members […], which is incompatible with Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights.” 9. Regarding the reform of article 264 of the Criminal Code concerning the offense of threats, the representatives indicated that this article retains the definition of the offense with an “ambiguous description that does not delimit clearly the scope of the unlawful conduct.” They also recalled that the Court had urged the State to clarify the sort of threats that were at issue, so as not to stifle freedom of thought and the expression of valid and legitimate opinions, or protests or disagreements regarding the actions of public bodies or their members.” In addition, they indicated that, “based on the information provided by the State, it would appear that no specific steps have been taken to amend the definition of this offense in the Chilean Criminal Code.” Thus, the State has not complied with this aspect. 10. The Inter-American Commission “note[d] the importance of the prompt processing, discussion, and approval of the bills” regarding the repeal or amendment of the domestic laws that were incompatible with international standards on freedom of thought and expression. Regarding the definition of the offense of disrespect for authority, it indicated that “in the document forwarded by the State on the recently promulgated laws, the reform of article 284 of the Code of Military Justice was not included.” In addition, it stated that “it d[id] not have precise information on the procedure being used to reform [it].” Thus, the Commission asked that the State submit updated information on this point. It also noted that “the State has still not presented information on the measures taken to adapt [article] 264 of the Chilean Criminal Code to international standards.” 11. Lastly, the Commission concluded that, “despite the time that has passed since the judgment was handed down […], the State has not reported any substantial progress with regard to compliance with this measure of reparation,” and indicated the lack of “detailed, updated, and complete information on […] the measures taken and to be taken” by the State to adapt Chilean domestic law to international standards on freedom of expression as regards the offenses of threats and disrespect for authority. 12. Based on the information provided by the parties, the Court observes that, even though legislative proposals have been made to repeal the offense of disrespect for authority established in article 284 of the Code of Military Justice, and the reform of the offense of threats, established in article 264 of the Criminal Code, has been discussed, almost six years after the judgment was delivered, both offenses continue in force under domestic law. Regarding the offense of disrespect for authority, the Court observes that several different bills to repeal it have been submitted to the legislature; however, the elimination of this offense has yet to be approved. The Court also notes that the State has indicated that the offense of threats continues in force in its law, and that it has analyzed article 264 of the Criminal Code, regarding which it recognized the ambiguity of the description of the unlawful conduct and the lack of clarity regarding the protected right. 4