4

8.
That the Court appreciates the usefulness of the hearing that was held in order to
monitor the operative paragraphs pending compliance in the instant case. Likewise, the
Tribunal makes a positive assessment of the fact that it was the State that asked for said
hearing to be held so that it could report on its progress regarding the international
obligations involved in the instant case.
*

*

*

9.
That, in relation to the duty to take all the necessary measures to annul and amend,
within a reasonable period of time, any domestic provisions which are incompatible with the
international standards regarding freedom of thought and expression, (operative paragraph
thirteen of the Judgment), the State informed that “[r]egarding Chile’s obligation to
abrogate or amend the crime of contempt which is currently in force under the [Code of
Military Justice], in order to bring domestic standards regarding freedom of expression in
line with those established [in the American Convention], full consensus has been reached
on the abrogation of the existing crime”, since it indeed restricts public speaking and the
role of public opinion in a democratic society. It added that the manner in which the crime is
to be abrogated has not been decided yet and that different options are being studied,
although "the substantive agreement is to eliminate said domestic law provision, thus
causing legislation to conform to the decision of [the Court].”
10.
That the representatives noted that the State “omit[ted] the information on the
measures adopted to annul and amend the domestic provisions referring to the criminal
definition of 'threats’ that are incompatible with international freedom of expression
standards.” Likewise, they highlighted the fact that the manner in which the crime of
contempt will be abrogated has not been decided yet. The asked the Court to: i) reiterate
the request made to the State “to furnish information on the measures adopted to annul or
amend the domestic provisions referring to the criminal definition of 'threat'”, and ii) call
upon the State to “furnish updated information on the measures adopted to annul or amend
the definition of the crime of contempt as established in the Code of Military Justice."
11.
That the Commission reiterated its concern over the State’s failure to furnish specific,
adequate and detailed information on the measures adopted in order to comply with the
obligation to bring domestic provisions on freedom of thought and expression in line with
international standards. It added that, in its last report, the State “did not include any
information on the progress made regarding the amendment of section 284 of the Code of
Military Justice, which applies the definition of 'threats to the Armed Forces' to punish the
crime of 'contempt.’” Therefore, no information is available regarding compliance with this
obligation, which, as the State has confirmed, is pending compliance.
12.
That the Court observes that although the reports of the State refer to the criminal
definition of contempt provided for in section 284 of the Code of Military Justice, they do not
refer to the criminal definition of threats provided for in section 264 of the Criminal Code.
Information was not made available even after the State was specifically and repeatedly
called upon to report on said crime. In this regard, it is worth recalling that, in the Judgment
of the instant case, the Court held that "[section 264 of] the Criminal Code includes an
ambiguous description and does not clearly specify the scope of the criminal conduct, thus
leaving room for broad interpretation and, as a result, the conduct previously regarded as

Select target paragraph3