5 contempt may be unduly punished through the use of the criminal offense of threats.”7 Therefore, in said Judgment, the Court held that if Chile decided to maintain said provision it had to "specify the kind of threats concerned in order to prevent suppression of freedom of thought and expression of valid and legitimate opinions or whatever disagreement and protests against government bodies and their members.”8 13. That the Court also wishes to recall that in its Order of November 30, 2007 it called upon the State to report on the stages, deadlines and content of the reform bills introduced to comply with this operative paragraph of the Judgment, in relation to both the crime of threats set forth in section 264 of the Criminal Code and the crime of contempt set forth in section 284 of the Code of Military Justice.9 While the Court appreciates the fact that the State is currently assessing different alternatives to repeal section 284 of the Code of Military Justice, it must be highlighted that it has been almost four years since the Judgment was handed down without the State having informed any substantial progress regarding compliance with this reparation. Hence, in its next report Chile must include detailed and updated information on the amendment of domestic law so as to bring provisions on the aforementioned crimes of threats and contempt in line with international standards regarding freedom of expression. * * * 14. That, as regards the duty to: i) bring the domestic legal system in line with international standards regarding criminal military justice and to set limits to the subjectmatter and personal jurisdiction of military courts through its legislation (operative paragraph fourteen of the Judgment) and ii) to guarantee due process in military criminal courts, and judicial protection regarding the actions of military authorities (operative paragraph fifteen of the Judgment), the State informed, inter alia, that: i) the bill that “modifies the jurisdiction of military courts and abolishes capital punishment" sent by the Executive Power to the National Congress in 2007 is being processed in the Senate. This bill is “the first step in the process of partial reform of military criminal justice", and, although “it does not solve all the problems arising from an all-encompassing reform [of said military criminal justice,] it does limit jurisdiction in a qualitative manner and it does abolish capital punishment.” ii) on the other hand, as regards the progress made regarding the all-encompassing reform of military criminal justice, the decree that created the Comisión de Estudios para la Reforma de la Justicia Militar (CERJM) [Commission for the Study of the Reform to Military Justice] (hereinafter, the “CERJM”) established that the deadline to complete its activities was December 2008, and that, by said date, it had to submit a legal reform proposal including the modification of military criminal proceedings and military criminal definitions; 7 Case of Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 92. 8 Case of Palamara-Iribarne, supra note 7, para. 92. 9 Cf. Case of Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 30, 2007, Considering clause twenty-six.