ORDER OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF NOVEMBER 28, 2003 “THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST” CASE (OLMEDO BUSTOS ET AL.) COMPLIANCE WITH JUDGMENT HAVING SEEN: 1. The judgment on merits and reparations delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court” or “the Inter-American Court”) in “The Last Temptation of Christ” case on February 5, 2001, in which the Court decided: unanimously, 1. [...] that the State violated the right to freedom of thought and expression embodied in Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Juan Pablo Olmedo Bustos, Ciro Colombara López, Claudio Márquez Vidal, Alex Muñoz Wilson, Matías Insunza Tagle and Hernán Aguirre Fuentes. 2. [...] that the State did not violate the right to freedom of conscience and religion embodied in Article 12 of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Juan Pablo Olmedo Bustos, Ciro Colombara López, Claudio Márquez Vidal, Alex Muñoz Wilson, Matías Insunza Tagle and Hernán Aguirre Fuentes. 3. [...] that the State failed to comply with the general obligations of Article 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights in relation to the violation of the right to freedom of thought and expression indicated in decision 1 of this judgment. 4. [...] that the State must amend its domestic law, within a reasonable period, in order to eliminate prior censorship to allow exhibition of the film “The Last Temptation of Christ”, and must provide a report on the measures taken in that respect to the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, with six months of the notification of this judgment. 5. [...] that, the State must pay the amount of US$4.290 (four thousand two hundred and ninety United States dollars), as reimbursement of the expenses arising from the steps taken by the victims and their representatives in the domestic proceedings and in the international proceeding before the inter-American protection system. This amount to be paid through the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. 6. [...] that it [would] monitor that this judgment [was] complied with and only then [would] it close the case. 2. The first report of the State of Chile (hereinafter “the State” or “Chile”) of August 7, 2001, in which it described the measures adopted to comply with the Court’s decisions in its judgment, and indicated that “the plenary session of Congress [had adopted] the draft constitutional reform designed to establish the right to freedom of artistic creation and to eliminate cinematographic censorship.” Chile also advised that “the Executive submitted to the National Congress a [...] draft law on classification of cinematographic production, [...] [which was] undergoing the first constitutional steps,” and that the “Cinematographic Classification Council (CCC) ha[d] started to reclassify some previously rejected cinematographic productions so as to pave the way for their public exhibition.” The original of this report and its attachments was received by the Secretariat on August 24, 2001. 3. The brief of October 12, 2001, in which the victims and their representatives