7 c) With regard to the provisions referred to in transitory section 1,7 providing for the presumption that the laws on secrecy and reserve promulgated before the Law are legal, Chile states that their aim is to rectify a formal requirement of said secrecy laws that were not passed with the special majority established in the constitutional reform of 2005. This does not entail that said laws are per se constitutional, or that their provisions are prejudiced. However, as the organic and generic repeal of all prior laws was not possible, it was decided that they should be considered on a caseby-case basis. The legal principles providing for the reserve of documents or acts that are inconsistent with the purpose of the Political Constitution of the State shall not be effective for they would be unconstitutional. 10. That during the monitoring hearing the State highlighted that the Judgment rendered by the Court in the instant case made an “extraordinary contribution to the access to public information and the strengthening of the freedom of expression;” it further asserted that the Judgment was “also well-appreciated by some of many analysis reports and articles issued after the promulgation of the law on transparency and probity” and it forwarded opinions on the new language of the Law as being “more comprehensive, mainly as a result of the impact of the conviction on the State of Chile by the Inter-American Court.” 11. That during the monitoring hearing the representative, in turn, asserted that the passing of the Law translated as a radical change as not only was an organic rule drafted but also because it created an entity for the protection and promotion of the right, the Council for Transparency, with powers to solve specific cases as well as to pass legislation within the sphere of the Administration. This statute is the first milestone, and it will be applicable to all the organs of the State Administration, though its provisions shall not apply to other State entities like the Judiciary, the National Congress and entities bearing constitutional autonomy like the Constitutional Tribunal, the Central Bank, among others. Moreover, during the monitoring hearing the representative expressly renewed his concerns on certain provisions of the Law the application of which to specific cases, in the representative’s opinion, could potentially elicit review by the Inter-American Court. In particular, the representative referred to the indefinitely temporal reserve provision and to the fact that the laws containing secrecy or reserve provisions prior to the effective date of this rule had been validated from a formal standpoint under transitory section 1 of the Law (supra Considering Clauses 9(a) and 9 (c). The representative stated that these issues should be considered, but that this was not requested “as a condition for compliance with the Judgment;” and that “based, on the assertions and the measures adopted by the State of Chile, it should be considered that the State [had] complied with the Judgment of the Court.” The representative emphasized that the order of the Court in the instant case “set a remarkable international precedent on the acknowledgment of the right of access to public information like the freedom of expression.” 7 Section 1°.- Under transitory provision 4 of the Political Constitution, the special majority requirement shall be deem fulfilled by the legal precepts in force passed before promulgation of Law No. 20050 providing for secrecy or reserve of certain acts or documents based on the grounds set out in Article 8 of the Political Constitution.