115 d) Adaptation of domestic law to the international standards on contempt 254. The Court values the reform of the Criminal Code enacted through the publication of Law No. 20,048 on August 31, 2005, whereby certain provisions addressing the crime of contempt were repealed and modified. Regarding the domestic legal provisions that still regulate such crime (supra paras. 92 and 93), within a reasonable time period the State is required to adopt such measures as may be required to repeal and modify whatever legal provisions may be incompatible with the international standards on freedom of thought and expression, in a manner such that all persons are allowed to exercise democratic control over all state institutions and officials, through the free expression of their ideas and opinions on their performance in office without fearing future retaliation. 255. For such purpose, the State is to take special consideration of the provisions of the American Convention, in line with the criteria laid down in paragraphs 79 to 93 of this Judgment. e) Adaptation of domestic law to the international standards on military criminal jurisdiction 256. As to the need to bring its domestic law in line with the international standards on military criminal jurisdiction, it is the Court’s view that, should the State consider that having military criminal courts is in fact necessary, their jurisdiction should be restricted to cases concerning crimes of a strictly military nature committed by military personnel in active service only. Therefore, through its own domestic laws, the State is required to set limits to the subject-matter and personal jurisdiction of military courts, so that under no circumstance may a civilian be subjected to the jurisdiction of military courts (supra paras. 120 to 144). The State is to implement the necessary legislative changes within a reasonable term. 257. Furthermore, within the military criminal jurisdiction, court members shall meet the competence, impartiality and independence requirements stated in paragraphs 120 to 161 of this Judgment. Moreover, the State is to guarantee due process of law before the military criminal courts and judicial protection in the context of proceedings before military authorities, as stated in paragraphs 162 to 189 of this Judgment. 258. With regard to the other claims on reparations, the Court considers that this Judgment constitutes, in and of itself, a form of reparation. D) COSTS AND EXPENSES 259. As the Court has stated on previous occasions, costs and expenses are contemplated within the concept of reparations as enshrined in Article 63(1) of the American Convention, since the victim’ efforts to obtain justice at both the domestic and international levels generate expenses that must be compensated when the State’s international responsibility has been established in a condemnatory judgment. With regard to their reimbursement, the Court must prudently assess their extent, which involves the expenses incurred when acting before the authorities with domestic jurisdiction as well as those incurred in the course of proceedings