2 Aguirre Fuentes, as a result of the “judicial censorship of the cinematographic exhibition of the film “The Last Temptation of Christ”, confirmed by the Supreme Court of Chile [...] on June 17, 1997.” 3. The Commission also requested the Court to order the State: 1. To authorize the normal cinematographic exhibition and publicity of the film “The Last Temptation of Christ.” 2. To 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. To ensure that, in the exercise of their different powers, public bodies [,] their authorities and officials [effectively] exercise the rights and freedoms of expression, conscience and religion recognized in the American Convention and [...] abstain from imposing prior censorship on cinematographic productions. 4. To make reparations to the victims in this case for the damage suffered. 5. To pay the costs and reimburse the expenses incurred by the victims when litigating this case in both [the] domestic sphere and before the Commission and the Court, as well as reasonable fees for their representatives. II COMPETENCE 4. Chile has been a State Party to the American Convention since August 21, 1990, and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court the same day. Therefore, the Court is competent to hear this case. III PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION 5. On September 3, 1997, the Secretariat of the Commission received a petition filed by the Asociación de Abogados por las Libertades Públicas A.G., representing Juan Pablo Olmedo Bustos, Ciro Colombara López, Claudio Márquez Vidal, Alex Muñoz Wilson, Matías Insunza Tagle and Hernán Aguirre Fuentes and “the other inhabitants of the Republic of Chile.” The Commission informed the State of the petition and asked it to submit the corresponding information within 90 days. 6. On January 8, 1998, the State transmitted its answer to the Commission, which forwarded it to the petitioners, who submitted their reply on February 23, 1998. On June 16, 1998, having been granted an extension, the State submitted a brief answering the reply that the petitioners had submitted to the Commission. 7. On February 27, 1998, a hearing was held at the seat of the Commission, attended by the petitioners’ representatives, but not by the State, although it had been duly convened. 8. During its 99th regular session, the Commission adopted Report No. 31/98, in which it declared the case admissible. The report was forwarded to the State on May 18, 1998.