31 X NON-COMPLIANCE OF ARTICLES 1(1) AND 2 OBLIGATION TO RESPET RIGHTS AND DOMESTIC LEGAL EFFECTS The Commissions’s arguments 81. that: With regard to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, the Commission alleged a. Chile has not adopted “the necessary legislative measures to guarantee and make effective the rights and freedoms established in the Convention with regard [to] freedom of expression”; b. The final paragraph of article 19(12) of the Constitution of Chile and Decree Law No. 679 are not adjusted to the standards of Article 13 of the Convention, because the former permits prior censorship of the exhibition and publicity of cinematographic production and the latter authorizes the Cinematographic Classification Council to “reject” films. For this reason, the State violated Article 2 of the Convention; c. Chile should have taken the necessary measures to enact the pertinent constitutional and legal norms in order to revoke the system of prior censorship of cinematographic productions and their publicity and thus adapt its domestic legislation to the Convention; d. The State submitted a draft reform of the final paragraph of article 19(12) of the Constitution in order to eliminate cinematographic censorship, substituting it by a system of cinematographic classification. However, since the National Congress has still not adopted this draft reform, Chile continues to be in violation of Article 2 of the Convention; e. The decisions of the courts of justice engage the international responsibility of the State. In this case, the courts did not take into consideration the provisions of the Convention with regard to freedom of expression and conscience, even though article 5(2) of the Constitution recognizes that sovereignty is limited by respect for the fundamental rights arising from the international treaties that Chile has ratified. Therefore, in prohibiting the exhibition of the film, the final judgment of the Supreme Court failed to observe the obligation to adopt “measures as may be necessary” to make effective the rights and freedoms embodied in the Convention; f. Although the State has expressed its intention of complying with international law, the failure to annul a norm that is incompatible with the Convention, and to adjust domestic laws and the conduct of the Legislature and Judiciary to make such norms effective signifies that the State is violating the Convention; g. Chile is responsible for violating the rights protected in Articles 12, 13 and 2 of the Convention in relation to its Article 1(1); and h. States must respect and ensure all the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention to the persons subject to their jurisdiction, and also change