8 constitutional procedural stage in the Senate, where it had been submitted on May 6, 2009.15 With respect to the second legislative procedure mentioned, the State also submitted a copy of its text, along with its August 2010 report, and indicated that it was a bill to "[m]odif[y] Article [657] of the Criminal Procedure Code, providing a new review channel for human rights violations."16 It added that the bill was in the first stage of consideration and that it "mark[ed] the first report of the Lower House Committee on Human Rights, Nationality and Citizenship as a substage." The State also noted that both legislative procedures referred to the Judgment of the Court in this case. 18. The representative of the victim and his family did not make observations on any of the State reports. 19. In its observations, the Commission did not refer to the information provided by Chile regarding compliance with operative paragraph six of the Judgment. 20. The Court notes that the State took a first step towards fulfilling its duty to ensure that the Decree Law does not continue to represent an obstacle to guaranteeing the right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection in Chile. The Court notes that the effective implementation of this reparation measure is an essential part of complying with the Judgment, as it aims to ensure that violations, such as those in the present case, do not recur by adopting domestic legal measures (legislative, administrative or otherwise) to correct the root causes of violations. While there may be different domestic law measures through which the State could ensure such an outcome, the Court notes that the State considers the most appropriate way to do so is through a legislative amendment. 21. Regarding the possibility of establishing specific grounds for filing a recourse to review in cases of serious human rights violations, the Court notes that, in such a case, a judicial review of these cases would be possible, so long as the review is not impeded by the enforcement of the principle of legality and retroactivity of criminal law. 22. Because of the foregoing, the Court deems that Chile needs to explain how the two aforementioned legislative amendments would ensure that Decree Law No. 2.191 is not enforced by domestic bodies and authorities in the investigation and punishment of violations similar to those that took place in the this case. On the other hand, the Court notes that the State reported on the initiation of the processing of the bill to interpret the grounds for the exclusion of criminal responsibility in May 2008 (supra Considering Clause 17) and more than two years later, this bill is still pending before the Senate. Since this reparation measure should be fulfilled within a reasonable time, the Court urges the State to take any steps that proceedings and punishments is not enforceable for crimes and single offences that, in accordance with International Law, constitute genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Furthermore, it must be understood that Art[icle] 103 of the Penal Code [that provides for the gradual, or semi, prescription of punishments] will not be enforceable for crimes and single offenses that, in accordance with International Law, constitute genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, committed by State agents or individuals acting on the State's behalf." 15 Previously, by means of a brief of May 30, 2008, (supra Having Seen 2), the State had informed the Court that the Senate Committee on Constitution, Legislation, Justice and Regulations had "analy[zed] and report[ed] on the bill" and once it had been brought before the Senate and this process concluded, the State would present the text of the bill to the Court. 16 The text of the second bill presented by the State proposes, in its sole article, "add[ing] two new grounds [for the recourse to review] to Article 657 of the Criminal Procedure Code: ‘5. When facts recognized in a judicial resolution showing that the judgment is based on statements made under torture. 6. When the judgment has been made in violation of obligations assumed by the State of Chile, under customary international law, conventional law, general principles of law and jus cogens norms, in matters concerning war crimes or crimes against humanity."