36 99. With regard to other forms of reparation, the Court believes that this judgment constitutes, per se, a form of reparation and moral satisfaction of significance and importance for the victims.22 100. Regarding reimbursement of expenses, this Court must prudently evaluate what they cover; this includes expenses for the steps taken by the victims before the authorities in the domestic jurisdiction, and also those arising in the course of the proceeding before the inter-American protection system. This evaluation may be carried out based on the principle of fairness.23 101. To this end, based on fairness, the Court calculates those expenses in a total amount of US$ 4.290 (four thousand two hundred and ninety United States dollars), and this should be paid to the appropriate party, through the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. 102. In accordance with its usual practice, the Court reserves the authority to monitor the integral fulfillment of this judgment. The case will be closed once the State has faithfully complied with the provisions of this decision. XII OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 103. Therefore, THE COURT unanimously: 1. Finds that the State violated the right to freedom of thought and expression embodied in Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Juan Pablo Olmedo Bustos, Ciro Colombara López, Claudio Márquez Vidal, Alex Muñoz Wilson, Matías Insunza Tagle and Hernán Aguirre Fuentes. 2. Finds that the State did not violate the right to freedom of conscience and religion embodied in Article 12 of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Juan Pablo Olmedo Bustos, Ciro Colombara López, Claudio Márquez Vidal, Alex Muñoz Wilson, Matías Insunza Tagle and Hernán Aguirre Fuentes. 3. Finds that the State failed to comply with the general obligations of Article 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights in relation to the violation of the right to freedom of thought and expression indicated in decision 1 of this judgment. 4. Finds that the State must amend its domestic law, within a reasonable period, in order to eliminate prior censorship to allow exhibition of the film “The Last Temptation of Christ”, and must provide a report on the measures taken in that 22 cf. Suárez Rosero case. Reparations (Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of January 20, 1999. Series C No. 44, para.72. 23 cf. Suárez Rosero case, supra note 22 para. 92.