15 this type of spectacle, in accordance with the principle of self-regulation and freedom. This constitutional reform may be accompanied by complementary reforms to the legislation. Once the constitutional reform has been adopted, Chileans and all the country's inhabitants will be constitutionally and legally able to attend freely the exhibition of the film that was censored. Under the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution, once the constitutional reform has been adopted, its provisions become mandatory immediately and directly, and the provisions currently in force, together with the judicial decisions that are contrary to the reform are annulled. With regard to freedom of conscience and religion, he considered that Article 12 of the Convention should be respected; this refers to freedom to profess a religion, to manifest one’s religious beliefs, not to be persecuted for one’s religion and to change religions. Freedom of conscience is closely related to freedom of expression. In this case, none of these conducts is codified or constituted, and therefore the abovementioned article was not violated. The State’s proposal for a friendly settlement was based on three basic elements: facilitating the exhibition of the film, creating a fund designed to promote freedom of expression in Ibero-America and an invitation to the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression of the Organization of American States (OAS). The latter has already occurred; the remaining points are subject to the fact that Chile is a democratic State of law governed by the principle of the separation of powers, and the competence of each Power cannot be disregarded. The State cannot facilitate the exhibition of the film without previously reforming the Constitution. The State authorities must carry out their obligations within the existing constitutional and democratic context. To the contrary, the President of the Republic could immediately be accused of committing the crime of desacato (contempt for public authorities) and could be politically indicted before the Chamber of Deputies for disregarding the Chilean legal system. Prior censorship is any unlawful impediment to the exercise of freedom of expression in its generic or extensive meaning. However, not all impediments to the exercise of freedom of expression may be qualified as censorship. Any unlawful impediment of freedom of expression is contrary to the rule of law, democracy and human rights. When, as a precautionary measure, the Judiciary prohibits the circulation of a book or the exhibition of a film because they damage the honor of specific persons, it incurs in a flagrant act of censorship. An opinion that harms the honor of a person does not constitute an unlawful exercise of freedom of expression. Exercising a “precautionary order” does not constitute a legal impediment to the publication of pamphlets, leaflets or works that may irreversibly or permanently harm the honor of an individual. In many cases, the Chilean courts of justice are unaware of the latest advances in international human rights law. Article 5(2) of the Constitution was reformed through the will of the constituent power in a 1989 plebiscite, in the sense that the fundamental rights recognized in the Convention and other international treaties ratified by Chile and in force in the country and the procedural guarantees and remedies designed to make the protection of those rights effective, constitute provisions of law and guarantees with constitutional ranking. The preamble to the Convention states that international protection should be understood in terms of reinforcing or complementing; the same words are used in Chilean constitutional and juridical laws. Consequently, a