70 […] only provide[d] for the partial reparation of one of the violations of the Convention.” In turn, the Commission stated that “it ha[d] no specific comments to raise and […] that the abrogation of contempt was effected only for the purposes of the Criminal Code and not of the Code of Military Justice.” In addition, the Commission pointed out that “it share[d] the comments made by the representatives of the [alleged] victim” in the sense that Mr. Palamara-Iribarne should be fully compensated for the damage sustained. 91. The Court appreciates the enactment of Law No. 20,048 by the State in order to harmonize domestic legislation with the American Convention, and considers that it is of significant importance in this case given that it abrogated or amended, inter alia, sections 264(3), 265 and 266 of the Chilean Criminal Code, which served as the basis for the Navy Court-Martial’s judgment against Mr. Palamara-Iribarne. 92. The Court notes with concern that, despite the valuable contribution of the legislative reform, section 264 of the Criminal Code, as amended, still includes the offense of “threat” to the same authorities that constituted, before the amendment to said Code, the passive subject of the offense of contempt. This way, the Criminal Code includes an ambiguous description and does not clearly specify the scope of the criminal conduct, thus leaving room for broad interpretation and, as a result, the conduct previously regarded as contempt may be unduly punished through the use of the criminal offense of threats. Therefore, if the State decides to maintain said provision, it should specify the kind of threats concerned in order to prevent suppression of freedom of thought and expression of valid and legitimate opinions or whatever disagreement and protests against government bodies and their members. 93. In addition, the Court notes that the legislative reform implemented by means of Law No. 20,048 did not encompass all provisions dealing with contempt insofar as it is still an offense under the Code of Military Justice. Therefore, disproportionate sanctions are still being imposed for criticism leveled at government institutions and their members, and military institutions and their members are afforded greater protection than that afforded to civilian institutions in a democratic society, which is incompatible with Article 13 of the American Convention. * * * 94. Furthermore, the Court considers that, in the instant case, the summary administrative investigation (supra paras. 63(94) to 63(101)), the decision to suspend the authorization that Mr. Palamara-Iribarne had to write for a newspaper (supra para. 63(104)) and the decision to “terminate” Mr. Palamara-Iribarne’s “contract early” (supra para. 63(106)) constituted indirect means to restrict Mr. Palamara-Iribarne’s freedom of thought and expression. * * * 95. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the State has violated the right to freedom of thought and expression enshrined in Article 13 of the American Convention to the detriment of Mr. Palamara-Iribarne in light of the acts of prior