10 correctly determines that, in the circumstances of the cas d'espèce, the modifications in the domestic legal order required to harmonize this latter with the norms of protection of the American Convention constitute a form of non-pecuniary reparation under the Convention27 (pars. 96-98). And in a case like the present one, pertaining to the safeguard of the right to freedom of thought and of expression, such non-pecuniary reparation is considerably more important than an indemnization. 26. Another distinction found in part I of the aforementioned project of the ILC, between the obligations of behaviour and those of result, despite all the doctrinal debate it has entailed in the last three decades, has, at least, exercised the role of demonstrating the necessity to promote a better articulation between the domestic and international legal orders28. I consider such articulation of particular importance for the future of the international safeguard of human rights, with special emphasis on the positive obligations of protection on the part of the State, on the basis of its objective international responsibility engaged as from the violation of its international obligations29. 27. The harmonization of the norms of domestic law with the provisions of human rights treaties can in fact be considered an obligation of result. But this does not mean that compliance with it can be postponed indefinitely. The whole doctrinal and jurisprudential construction of the last decades about the positive obligations of the States Parties to human rights treaties represents a reaction against the inertia, or the slowness, or the omissions of the public power in the present domain of protection. Such construction contributes to explain, and to set the foundations of, the legislative obligations of the States Parties to human rights treaties. 28. There remains a last point for me to consider in this Concurring Opinion, which was object of attention and debate in the public hearing before the Inter-American Court on the present case of "The Last Temptation of Christ", held on 18 and 19 November 1999: I refer to the argument of the respondent State according to which the domestic remedies would not have been exhausted, given the fact that a project of 27 . Precisely to this effect I had already pronounced in my Dissenting Opinion in the case Caballero Delgado and Santana versus Colombia (Reparations, 1997 - IACtHR, Judgment of 29.01.1997, Series C, n. 31), pars. 6 and 9 (on the indissociability between the general duties of Articles 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention), and pars. 13-14 and 20 (on the modifications of norms of domestic law as a form of nonpecuniary reparation under the Convention). 28 . P.-M. Dupuy, "Le fait générateur de la responsabilité internationale des États", 188 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International de La Haye (1984) pp. 50 and 25; and cf. P.A. Fernández Sánchez, Las Obligaciones de los Estados en el Marco del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos, Madrid, Ministerio de Justicia Publs., 1987, pp. 59-83 and 193-194. 29 . Cf., on the matter, e.g., Jules Basdevant, "Règles générales du droit de la paix", 58 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International de La Haye (1936) pp. 670-674; Eduardo Jiménez de Aréchaga, El Derecho Internacional Contemporáneo, Madrid, Ed. Tecnos, 1980, pp. 319-325, and cf. pp. 328-329; Ian Brownlie, System of the Law of Nations - State Responsibility - Part I, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1983, p. 43; Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 4th. ed., Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1995 (reprint), p. 439; Paul Guggenheim, Traité de Droit International Public, volume II, Genève, Georg, 1954, pp. 52 and 54; L.G. Loucaides, Essays on the Developing Law of Human Rights, Dordrecht, Nijhoff, 1995, pp. 146 and 149152; Paul Reuter, "Principes de Droit international public", 103 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International de La Haye (1961) pp. 592-594 and 598-603; C.W. Jenks, "Liability for Ultra Hazardous Activities in International Law", 117 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International de La Haye (1966) pp. 105-110 and 176-196; Karl Zemanek, "La responsabilité des États pour faits internationalement illicites, ainsi que pour faits internationalement licites", in Responsabilité internationale (org. Prosper Weil), Paris, Pédone, 1987, pp. 36-38 and 44-46; Benedetto Conforti, Diritto Internazionale, 5th. ed., Napoli, Ed. Scientifica, 1997, pp. 360-363; J.A. Pastor Ridruejo, Curso de Derecho Internacional Público y Organizaciones Internacionales, 6a. ed., Madrid, Tecnos, 1996, pp. 571-573.