the ordinary justice system when they commit offenses that are not in the course of ‘duty,’” and c) They also expressed concern about the third bill on the creation and regulation of the military courts and prosecutors, because its drafting and forwarding to the legislature are still pending, and the reform process will not be complete without it. 16. Furthermore, the representatives repeatedly expressed their regret that more than five years since the judgment in this case was handed down, Chile “still retains in force a system of military justice that violates international standards for the protection of human rights, in clear breach of the guarantees enshrined in the American Convention.” Additionally, they stressed the importance of the State “addressing the reform of the [military criminal justice system] integrally and urgently, by taking all necessary steps to advance the parliamentary procedure.” 17. The Inter-American Commission assessed positively the progress that the State has made in complying with the measures of reparation. However, it placed particular emphasis on ensuring that the amendments and reforms “be truly relevant and that they are feasible, by using a consensual, integrated, appropriate and extremely specific approach, so that the temporal differences in the development and approval of the different reforms do not render them futile.” It also underlined that, given the complementary nature of the bills introduced by the State, the National Congress should deal with them in an integrated manner. 18. In addition, in relation to the information provided by the State, the Inter-American Commission: a) Took note of the promulgation of Law No. 20,477, and assessed positively the legislative initiative, because it considered that “it is an advance in the present compliance procedure.” Nonetheless, it observed that, pursuant to article 8 of the transitory provisions, “despite introducing the possibility of transferring cases to the ordinary courts, the proceedings before the military courts against anyone who does not meet the requirements to be tried before this jurisdiction would be valid in the ordinary jurisdiction, and this would affect the right of civilians to be tried in accordance with the rules of due process under the ordinary system of justice.” b) It observed that Chile has not forwarded any information concerning to the adaptation of its military justice system as regards “the secretive nature of [its] actions.” In this regard, the Commission found that, if military proceedings do not guarantee an oral phase in which the right to a public trial is ensured, “the guarantees of due process would be affected” even though the possibility of referring the case to the ordinary jurisdiction exists, because the ordinary judge “would be constrained because the evidence was provided to the military courts in proceedings that did not offer the appropriate guarantees” for equality between the parties and for the adequate defense of their interests and rights. 19. The Court assesses favorably the information submitted by the State regarding the fourteenth and fifteenth operative paragraphs of the judgment, as well as the efforts made by drafting bills, and other initiatives to reform the military criminal justice system. Similarly, the Court notes and assesses positively the progress made in the reform of military justice due to the approval of Law No. 20,477. 20. Nonetheless, the Court observes that, although the judgment in the present case indicated that the process of harmonizing domestic law to the international standards for 7