69 officials…, which], through the intimidating power of the punishment that may be imposed[,…] prevents free debate from developing fully […and inhibits] citizens watch [on] decision-makers and political leaders.” 87. In the instant case, Mr. Palamara-Iribarne suffered serious consequences for having voiced his opinion on the manner in which officers of the military justice were conducting the proceedings against him and the manner in which military authorities were treating him and his family. During Criminal Case for contempt No. 471/93, pending before the Naval Court in and for Magallanes, Mr. Palamara-Iribarne was deprived of his liberty for four days (supra para. 63(83)); he was released on bail after filing a petition against this measure (supra para. 63(82)) and, finally, on January 3, 1995, the Court-Martial sentenced him to, inter alia, a minimum term of imprisonment of 61 days and suspension from public office or employment for the duration of the sentence (supra para. 63(91)). 88. The Court considers that in the instant case, by pressing a charge of contempt, criminal prosecution was used in a manner that is disproportionate and unnecessary in a democratic society, which led to the deprivation of Mr. Palamara-Iribarne’s right to freedom of thought and expression with regard to the negative opinion he had of matters that had a direct bearing on him and were closely related to the manner in which military justice authorities carried out their public duties during the proceedings instituted against him. The Court believes that the contempt laws applied to Palamara-Iribarne established sanctions that were disproportionate to the criticism leveled at government institutions and their members, thus suppressing debate, which is essential for the functioning of a truly democratic system, and unnecessarily restricting the right to freedom of thought and expression. * * * 89. Article 2 of the American Convention binds States Parties to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of the Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights and freedoms protected thereby. It is necessary to reassert that the obligation to harmonize domestic legislation is not satisfied until the reform is effectively implemented184 and until such reform includes all provisions hindering the exercise of the aforesaid rights and freedoms. 90. As regards the offense of contempt, of which Mr. Palamara-Iribarne was convicted, the Court notices that on August 31, 2005, the State published Law No. 20,048 which amends the Criminal Code and the Code of Military Justice, abolishing or amending the provisions of the Criminal Code that were applied to his case (supra paras. 44 and 63(102)). In this regard, the representatives of the alleged victim, in their comments on the aforesaid Law, stated that “they ha[d] no objections to the legislative reform notified by the State” and indicated that the “statutory amendment 184 Cf. Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 1, para. 87; Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 5, para. 100; and Case of Caesar. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C No. 123, paras. 91 and 93.