4 6 Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo-Bustos et al. v. Chile, Judgment of February 5, 2001), following the same line of reasoning, I stated that "the international responsibility of a State Party in a human rights treaty arises the moment an illegal international fact –act or omissionattributable to that State and in violation of the treaty under issue takes place (tempus commisi delicti); (...) the effectiveness of a domestic law provision, which per se entails a legal situation which affects the rights protected by a human rights treaty, constitutes, within the context of a specific case, a continued violation of said treaty; (...) the amendments in the domestic legal system of a State Party necessary to its harmonization with the rules and regulations of a human rights treaty may constitute, in the context of a specific case, a way of non-pecuniary reparation under said treaty” (...) (para. 40). 13. In the cas d'espèce, the legislation applied to Mr. Palamara-Iribarne, although amended to a certain extent, as recognized in this Judgment (paras. 91-93, 130 and 263), retains rules or provisions which are contrary to the general obligations set forth in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention, reason for which additional violations are generated per se, regardless of those related to the rights declared violated herein. 14. The combination of the above mentioned rules, still in force, entails as main and most serious consequence, that in Chile civilians may be subjected, in certain circumstances, to the military criminal jurisdiction, placing them, when that occurs, in a particular condition of vulnerability and non-protection, thus violating the general duty to respect and make others respect, without any discrimination, the rights protected in the American Convention (Article 1(1)). 15. It is evident that the amendment of the Criminal Code by the Chilean State regarding contempt and the criminal procedural amendment it carried out are particularly important in order to fulfill the above mentioned general duties under the Convention. However, as pointed out in this Judgment, those provisions are not enough to achieve the protection of the rights consecrated in the American Convention because, on the one hand, the State still enforces domestic legislation provisions which contemplate the crime of contempt or criminal concepts which could lead to broad interpretations that would allow that the above considered conducts -such as contempt - to be penalized (paras. 91-93 and 254), and, on the other hand, it has excluded the military jurisdiction from the above mentioned criminal procedural amendment (paras. 122 and 256-257). 16. Consequently, as long as the State does not completely align the domestic law provisions with the international standards of the American Convention and stops fulfilling the general duty to respect and guarantee the respect for the conventionally protected rights, it shall be committing additional violations of Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention. Thus, in this case of Palamara-Iribarne, the Chilean State has violated and continues to violate the general obligations set forth in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention, - as they were in force at the time the facts of this case took place and at present domestic law provisions which are not in agreement with the international standards of protection of human rights set forth in those Articles of the American Convention are still in force. 6 IACHR, Judgment of February 05, 2001, C Series, No. 73.