32 or adapt their legislation to make effective the enjoyment and exercise of those rights and freedoms. In this case, Chile has not fulfilled its obligation to respect and ensure the freedoms embodied in Articles 12 and 13 of the Convention. The State’s arguments 82. The State alleged that: a. International human rights law forms part of Chilean law; b. In its report, the Commission indicated that it evaluated positively the initiatives taken by the State to ensure that, subject to the constitutional and legal procedures in force, the competent organs adopt the legislative or other measures necessary to make effective the right to freedom of expression. Consequently, Chile does not understand why the Commission hastened to submit the application, particularly, in view of the complementary role of the inter-American human rights organs; c. The State has the obligation to remedy the problem using the means it has available. On January 20, 1997, the Court of Appeal of Santiago delivered its judgment in this case and the Government, which did not agree with the decision adopted, submitted a draft constitutional reform to Congress on April 14, 1997. When errors or abuses are committed by one State authority and the competent authorities are in the process of remedying them, an application should not be filed before an international court, denaturalizing the essential function of the international system; d. Chile has assumed a responsible attitude by trying to remedy the problem through a draft constitutional reform that replaces prior censorship of cinematographic production with a system of classification of this production; e. An act of the Judiciary, which is contrary to international law, may engage the international responsibility of the State, provided that the State as a whole assumes the Judiciary’s criteria. In particular, the acquiescence of the organ responsible for international relations is required, which is the Executive, and this is not the situation in the instant case; f. Chile has not invoked domestic law to disengage itself from an obligation arising from an international treaty; and g. Finally, it requested the Court to declare that, pursuant to Article 2 of the Convention, Chile was in the process of adopting the necessary measures to eliminate cinematographic censorship and thus permit the exhibition of the film “The Last Temptation of Christ”. * * * Considerations of the Court 83. Article 1(1) of the American Convention establishes that: