interpreted and applied so that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties. 4 a) Regarding the obligation to adopt all necessary measures to repeal or amend the domestic laws that are incompatible with the international standards on freedom of thought and expression (thirteenth operative paragraph of the judgment) 6. In its order of September 21, 2009,5 the Court asked Chile to “submit detailed and updated information on the harmonization of its domestic law with international standards on freedom of expression in relation to the offenses of threats and disrespect towards public authorities (desacato)” described in articles 264 of the Criminal Code and 284 of the Code of Military Justice, respectively. Regarding the offense of disrespect for public authorities, in February 2010, the State advised that there was full agreement to repeal this legal concept, because “the offense is not of a military nature, and it severely restricts public debate as well as the role that an informed public opinion plays in a democratic society.” As for the way it would be repealed, the State indicated that “the Executive ha[d] opted for direct repeal, and not a mere amendment or modification,” by means of the bill on the jurisdiction and competence of military courts and proceedings before them, which was introduced into the Chamber of Representatives on October 27, 2009. Subsequently, Chile indicated that on September 9, 2010, the President of the Republic withdrew this bill from the National Congress and presented a new bill on the reform of military justice to the Chamber of Representatives, as bill No. 7203-02,6 which, “like its predecessor, includes repealing the offense of disrespect for authority, because it did not comply with the relevant international standards.” 7. Regarding the offense of threats, the State indicated that the purpose of retaining the said offense is to “protect the civil service” and prevent the “obstruction of democracy” resulting from authorities being coerced. In addition, it emphasized that, when deciding to retain this offense in its domestic law, “it was considered that this offense is not related to freedom of expression, because threats cannot be considered a legitimate exercise of [that right].” It also indicated that the definition of the offense in article 264 of the Criminal Code includes threats against the authorities in its first paragraph, and disturbing the public order in its second paragraph. However, Chile indicated that “there are some technical problems with regard to this concept,” and that “it is not very clear which right is protected,” although “it is almost never” applied. In addition, in its report of September 2010, the State indicated that the new bill on military justice reform “retains the aggravated offense of threats against members of the Armed Forces and the Police Force […] owing to the respect that their role and their rank merit.” In addition, in the proposed reform of article 284 of the Code of Military Justice, “[t]he description of the offense is restricted and the circumstances in which it is committed are very precise, in order to avoid a possible interpretation […] that could result in ‘conducts considered as disrespect for public authorities being punished unduly under the offense of threats.’” Lastly, the State indicated that the definition of the offense of threats in article 264 of the Criminal Code “does not differ from that […] 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999, Series C. No. 54, para. 37; Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru, supra note 1, fifth considering paragraph, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 2, sixth considering paragraph. 5 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2009, thirteenth considering paragraph. 6 The State did not forward the Court a copy of bill No. 7203-02, supposedly submitted to the National Congress on September 9, 2010, by the Executive Branch. Subsequently, on January 13, 2011, it forwarded a copy of Law No. 20,477. 3