20 57. In the case of the expert reports, the Court admits them, inasmuch as they relate to the experts’ knowledge of national or comparative law and its application to the facts of the case. 58. The 1980 Constitution of Chile is considered useful to make a decision in this case, and it is therefore added to the pool of evidence, in application of the provisions of Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure.6 59. The annexes submitted by the Commission in its brief of January 8, 2001 (supra para. 44), on the expenses incurred are considered useful to make a decision in this case, and the Court incorporates them into the pool of evidence, based on the provisions of Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure. VII PROVEN FACTS 60. After examining the documents, the statements of the witnesses and expert witnesses and the declarations of the State and the Commission during the proceeding, the Court considers that the following facts have been proved: a. Article 19(12) of the 1980 Constitution of Chile establishes a “system of censorship for the exhibition and publicity of cinematographic productions.”7 b. Decree Law No. 679 of October 1, 1974, authorizes the Cinematographic Classification Council to supervise cinematographic exhibition in Chile and classify films. The Regulation to this law is contained in the Supreme Decree on Education No. 376 of April 30, 1975. The Cinematographic Classification Council is part of the Ministry of Education.8 6 cf. Constitution of the Republic of Chile published in the official gazette No.30.798 on October 24, 1980. 7 cf. Constitution of the Republic of Chile published in the official gazette No.30.798 on October 24, 1980, article 19(12), seventh paragraph modified through the constitutional reform law No.18.825, D.O. 17-8-1989; annex II: copy of the judgment of January 20, 1997, of the Court of Appeal of Santiago, receiving the remedy for amparo filed by Sergio García Valdés, Vicente Torres Irarrázabal, Francisco Javier Donoso Barriga, Matías Pérez Cruz, Jorge Reyes Zapata, Cristian Heerwagen Guzmán and Joel González Castillo, in the name of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church and themselves, which annulled the administrative decision of the Cinematographic Classification Council, adopted on November 11, 1996; annex III: copy of the judgment of June 17, 1997, of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, confirming the judgment of January 20, 1997, of the Court of Appeal, which was appealed against; annex IV: copy of a draft constitutional reform which eliminates cinematographic censorship, substituting it with a classification system that establishes the right to free artistic creation and copy of message No. 339-334 issued on April 14, 1997, by the President of the Republic of Chile to the Camber of Deputies, supporting the said draft reform; expert report by José Zalaquett Daher submitted to the Inter-American Court on November 18, 1999; expert report by Humberto Nogueira Alcalá submitted to the Inter-American Court on November 18, 1999; expert report by José Luis Cea Egaña submitted to the Inter-American Court on November 18, 1999; and expert report by Francisco Cumplido submitted to the Inter-American Court on November 18, 1999. 8 cf. annex I: copy of the classification document issued by the Cinematographic Classification Council on November 11, 1996, advising that the Council had reviewed the film The Last Temptation of Christ and that it had approved it only for those of over 18 years of age; annex II: copy the judgment of January 20, 1997, of the Court of Appeal of Santiago, receiving the remedy for protection filed by Sergio García Valdés, Vicente Torres Irarrázabal, Francisco Javier Donoso Barriga, Matías Pérez Cruz, Jorge Reyes Zapata, Cristian Heerwagen Guzmán and Joel González Castillo, in the name of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church and themselves, and annulling the administrative decision of the Cinematographic Classification Council, adopted on November 11, 1996; annex III: copy of the judgment of June 17, 1997, of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, confirming the judgment of January 20, 1997, of the Court of Appeal,