7 recognized by the State are amended in order to satisfy the requirements of legal certainty and, consequently, to not affect the exercise of the right to freedom of expression (eleventh operative paragraph), the State submitted a copy of a draft bill to reform various provisions contained in the Criminal Code of the Nation, related to libel and slander. It stated that said project aimed to “promote the complete decriminalization of cases in which expressions refer to ‘matters of public interest’ or are ‘not assertive’” and, added that the “draft bill is based on the importance that opinions and critical assessments deserve and the significance that freedom of expression merits in any democratic society, as a stronghold of the rule of law” and to that effect, concluded that it is necessary to “abrogate Article 112 (‘covert’ slander and libel) from the Penal Code of the Nation and to replace several articles of the Penal Code [...] that refer to ‘slander and libel.’” Subsequently, the State reported that the said draft law was approved on November 18, 2009, and the respective law, promulgated on November 26, 2009. 31. The representatives gave value to the fact that the Argentine State had assumed an attitude directed at complying with the provisions of the Judgment. Nevertheless, they considered that the draft bill submitted by the State “is insufficient because it does not meet current standards [...] regarding protection of the right to freedom of thought and expression [...] of the the American Convention.” They stated that the draft bill regarding the reform is limited only to criminal matters, leaving in effect laws that contain civil penalties that could also generate “an inhibitory effect.” They insisted that “the threat of facing exorbitant sums of money in order to compensate for a damage to honor, which could lead to a collapse in the personal economy of any citizen, jeopardizes the use of freedom of expression.” They highlighted the fact that these civil penalties are applied using a law dating back to 1869, which is not based on “the highest international standards of protection of freedom of expression.” They also indicated that apart from the draft bill presented by the Executive, “there are other projects, regarding the modification of existing legislation that restricts freedom of expression, with a parliamentary status.” Finally, they noted that “the human rights violations endured by Mr. Kimel were shaped not only by the application of criminal rules but also by civil rules” and therefore, they considered that in order for the decision of the Inter-American Court to be complied with, both the criminal and civil legislation should be reformed. 32. The Commission acknowledged the submission of said draft bill as a “decisive step for the adaptation of domestic legislation.” Likewise, it also noted that said project “could have the effect of eliminating the use of criminal proceedings in relation to matters of public interest” and was “more precise regarding behaviors that are considered criminal offenses, which, in principle could overcome the shortcomings identified [in the Judgment].” 33. The Court values the actions taken by the State to fulfill its obligation. Likewise, it observes that the Law 26.551 that modifies the articles of the Penal Code of the Nation on the crimes of libel and slander, which was presented by the State, in fact does amend the codification and punishment of the crimes of libel and slander so as to not include “expressions to matters of public interest,” nor “expressions of a non-assertive nature,” and assigns monetary fines as punishment for the commission of said crimes. 34. The Tribunal recalls that the Judgment ordered the State to adapt its domestic law to the American Convention in regard the right of freedom of expression, in such a way that the “lack of accuracy acknowledged by the State […] be amended in order to comply with the requirements of legal certainty so that, consequently, they do not affect the exercise of [said] right.”7 It also observes that the inaccuracies recognized by the State concerned 7 Case Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 3, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 128 and eleventh operative paragraph.