34 these judgments, the Government of Chile submitted a draft constitutional reform to eliminate cinematographic censorship to Congress on April 14, 1997. The Court evaluates and underlines the importance of the Government’s initiative in proposing the said constitutional reform, because it may lead to adapting domestic laws to the content of the American Convention with regard to freedom of thought and expression. However, the Court observes that, despite the time that has elapsed since the draft reform was submitted to Congress, the necessary measures have still not been adopted to eliminate cinematographic censorship, as established in Article 2 of the Convention, and thus allow exhibition of the film “The Last Temptation of Christ.” 90. Consequently, the Court concludes that the State has failed to comply with the general obligations to respect and guarantee the rights protected by the Convention and to adapt its domestic laws to its provisions, as established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights. XI APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) 91. The Commission requested the Court to order that, as a result of the violation of Articles 12, 13, 2 and 1(1) of the Convention, the State should: 1. Authorize the normal cinematographic exhibition and publicity of the film “The Last Temptation of Christ.” 2. Adapt its constitutional and legal norms to the standards of freedom of expression embodied in the American Convention, in order to eliminate prior censorship of cinematographic productions and their publicity. 3. Ensure that the Government’s organs and its authorities and officials exercise their various powers so as to make effective the rights and freedoms of expression, conscience and religion recognized in the American Convention and, consequently, abstain from imposing prior censorship on cinematographic productions. 4. Make reparations to the victims in this case for the damage suffered. 5. Pay the costs and reimburse the expenses incurred by the victims in order to litigate [the] case, both in the domestic sphere and before the Commission and Court, as well as reasonable fees for their representatives. 92. Following a request from the Court (supra para. 37), of January 8, 2001, the Commission submitted a brief, with the evidentiary documents that, in their opinion, justify the request for payment of costs and expenses that had been presented in the petitionary clauses of their application, and also the corresponding arguments. In this brief, the Commission requested the Court that the Asociación de Abogados por las Libertades Públicas A.G. should be paid an amount of US$4,290 (four thousand two hundred and ninety United States dollars), representing expenses before the inter-American system, for the appearance of a representative at a hearing of the Inter-American Commission and the presence of legal representatives, witnesses and expert witnesses at the public hearing on merits held at the seat of the Court. Juan Pablo Olmedo Bustos and Ciro Colombara López, and also the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) waived reimbursement of any expenses incurred. With regard to costs, the Commission informed the Court that the representatives of the victims and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) had waived claiming costs for professional fees. The State’s arguments