National Congress for discussion, the weighing of interests that may exist will be examined on a case-by-case basis, which is necessary to guarantee the right to the protection of honor and dignity recognized in Article 11 of the Convention. The State has made efforts, which are still ongoing, to bring its domestic criminal law into line with inter-American standards on freedom of expression. 173. The Court reiterates that it is not only the suppression or issuance of norms in domestic law that guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention, in conformity with the obligation contained in Article 2 of said instrument. It also requires the establishment of State practices conducive to the effective observance of the rights and liberties enshrined therein. Consequently, the existence of a standard does not in itself guarantee its correct application. It is necessary that the application of the norms or their interpretation, as jurisdictional practices and manifestations of the State’s public order, be consistent with the purpose pursued by Article 2 of the Convention.189 174. By virtue of the violations declared and as a guarantee of non-repetition, the Court orders the State to adopt, within a reasonable time, legislative measures for the classification of the crime of slander in accordance with the parameters established in this judgment. As part of its compliance with this measure, the State must establish alternatives to criminal proceedings to protect the honor of public officials with respect to opinions related to their actions in the public sphere. 175. In this regard, the Court recalls that the different national authorities, including those involved in the process of adopting the stipulated legal provisions, have an obligation to exercise ex officio a control of conventionality within the framework of their respective jurisdictions and the corresponding procedural regulations. Thus, in order to effectively comply with the measures ordered, said authorities must take into account not only the content of the American Convention, but also the interpretation thereof provided by the InterAmerican Court in its case law and, in particular, the standards set forth in this judgment.190 Therefore, while the regulations referred to in the preceding paragraph of this judgment are being adopted, it is necessary that the interpretations of cases involving slander complaints, in application of Articles 12 paragraph 13, 416, 417, 418 and 420 of the Criminal Code, as well as Article 29 of Law No. 19733, conform to the principles established in the Court’s case law on freedom of expression, which have been reiterated in the instant case. 176. Finally, this Court has learned, based on information provided by the parties and the Commission, that there is a preliminary draft of the Criminal Code that would allow compliance with the third recommendation of the Commission regarding the adaptation of criminal legislation, insofar as it complements the second paragraph of Article 29 of the Law on Freedom of Opinion and Information in the Practice of Journalism, Law No. 19.733. However, according to the representatives, “it has not come into force as a valid regulation, because the draft Criminal Code that the government presented in 2018 continues without progress since the time of its presentation.” In this regard, the Court notes that it does not have sufficient elements to rule on this matter. D.2 Training measures Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 338, and Case of Moya Chacón et al., supra, para. 70. 190 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124, and Case of Casierra Quiñonez et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2022. Series C No. 450, para. 202. 189 50