3 10. The third report of the State of February 22, 2002, in which it referred to the measures adopted to comply with the judgment of February 5, 2001, among which, it mentioned: the “constitutional reform ending prior censorship,” the “draft law on Classification of Cinematographic Production, derogating [...] Decree Law No. 679 of 1974,” and the reclassification and immediate exhibition of the film “The Last Temptation of Christ.” 11. The brief of February 27, 2002, in which the victims presented their comments on the State’s third report. In this respect, they considered that “none of the terms of the fourth operative paragraph of the judgment had been complied with[,] cinematographic censorship ha[d] not been eliminated, exhibition of the film “The Last Temptation of Christ” ha[d] not been permitted and [...] [t]he law had not been amended in order to achieve these objectives, and it was evident that a reasonable period for achieving [them] had elapsed some time previously.” 12. The brief of April 9, 2002, of Juan Pablo Bustos, victim in this case, in which he stated that “the State of Chile has made no substantial progress” to comply with the judgment. 13. The brief of April 11, 2002, in which the Commission presented its comments on the State’s third report (supra tenth having seen paragraph). In this respect, it indicated that “there ha[d] been no progress in compliance with the terms of the fourth operative paragraph of the judgment” and “that the censorship preventing exhibition of the film “The Last Temptation of Christ” ha[d] not been lifted, and the necessary amendments to the law to eliminate cinematographic censorship in the Republic of Chile ha[d] not entered into force.” 14. The fourth report of the State of August 20, 2002, in which it declared that the “draft law on Classification of Cinematographic Production [...] was adopted by the Senate on July 10, 2002, and must now be submitted to the Chamber of Deputies so that they [can] decide whether to adopt it […]”. 15. The brief of September 24, 2002, and its attachment, in which the Commission presented its comments on the State’s fourth report. In this respect, it indicated that a year and a half had elapsed since the judgment of the Court, and the State had not adopted the necessary legislative measures to comply with the fourth operative paragraph of this judgment. 16. The brief of September 24, 2002, and its attachment, in which the victims presented their comments on the State’s fourth report. In this respect, they indicated that the State had not complied with the fourth operative paragraph of the judgment delivered by the Court (supra first having seen paragraph) regarding the obligation to “amend its domestic law, within a reasonable period, in order to eliminate prior censorship so as to allow exhibition of the film “The Last Temptation of Christ”[…].” Likewise, they indicated that the Executive had not attended to requests to allow exhibition of the film and that “the excessive delay in processing the draft law also entail[ed] flagrant non-compliance with the Court’s decisions and aggravate[d] the damage already suffered by the victims and petitioners in this case, depriving them of effective and timely protection of their rights.” 17. The documentation presented by the victims on October 21, 2002, specifically official documents Nos. 3909 and 3601 of the Chamber of Deputies and official