147. The Court orders, as it has in other cases,137 that the State publish, within six months of notification of this judgment: (a) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, once, in the Official Gazette; (b) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, once, in a national newspaper with widespread coverage in an adequate and legible font, and (c) this judgment in its entirety, which should be available for one year on an official website of the Judiciary, in a way that is accessible to the public.138 The State must inform this Court immediately when it has made each of the publications ordered, irrespective of the one-year time frame for presenting its first report established in the tenth operative paragraph of this judgment. Guarantees of non-repetition C.1. Adaptation of domestic law 148. The Commission asked the Court to order the State, as a guarantee of non-repetition, to “adapt domestic law to eliminate the grounds on which this case was based.” The representatives did not present arguments in this regard. 149. The State argued that it was not appropriate to order this measure because “the domestic courts ha[d] never sanctioned any judge of the Republic again for the conduct described in article 323.4 of the OCC.” In fact, the disciplinary grounds were used for the last time against Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux and had not been applied in the course of the last 14 years. However, the State also argued that “the restrictions in question are in keeping with the duty of discretion of judges in all cases in which the authority and impartiality of the judiciary is questioned.” 150. The Court appreciates the efforts made by the Chilean Judiciary to limit the application of the said article 323. Indeed, according to the information provided by the State, there is no record that paragraph 4 of Article 323 of the Organic Code of the Courts has been applied against since it was used as grounds for the disciplinary sanction of Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux.139 Nevertheless, it remains in force140 and, in the instant case, the Court has concluded that the State failed to comply with the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions by retaining paragraph 4 of Article 323 of the Organic Code of the Courts within its laws, pursuant to the obligation established in Article 2 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 8(1), 9 and 1(1) of the Convention (supra paras. 129 to 141). Consequently, the State must eliminate paragraph 4 of Article 323 of the Organic Code of the Courts. Other measures requested 151. The Commission asked the Court to order the adoption of “the administrative or any other measures necessary to fully reverse the sanction imposed on Daniel Urrutia Laubreaux, including by eliminating it from his personnel record or judicial file,” and to order the State “to ensure that the disciplinary grounds related to the right to freedom of expression of judges are compatible with the principle of legality and the right to freedom of expression as analyzed in the report.” Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69., para. 79, and Case of Petro Urrego v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 147. 137 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79, and Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 231. 138 Cf. President of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile. Table with the disciplinary measures imposed on judges from 2004 to 2018 (evidence file, folios 672 to 692). 139 Supreme Court, Directorate of Studies. Report on measures of non-repetition, IACHR case 12,955, Daniel Urrutia Laubreaux, April 18, 2019 (evidence file, folio 716). 140 37