4 8. That the Court appreciates the usefulness of the hearing that was held in order to monitor the operative paragraphs pending compliance in the instant case. Likewise, the Tribunal makes a positive assessment of the fact that it was the State that asked for said hearing to be held so that it could report on its progress regarding the international obligations involved in the instant case. * * * 9. That, in relation to the duty to take all the necessary measures to annul and amend, within a reasonable period of time, any domestic provisions which are incompatible with the international standards regarding freedom of thought and expression, (operative paragraph thirteen of the Judgment), the State informed that “[r]egarding Chile’s obligation to abrogate or amend the crime of contempt which is currently in force under the [Code of Military Justice], in order to bring domestic standards regarding freedom of expression in line with those established [in the American Convention], full consensus has been reached on the abrogation of the existing crime”, since it indeed restricts public speaking and the role of public opinion in a democratic society. It added that the manner in which the crime is to be abrogated has not been decided yet and that different options are being studied, although "the substantive agreement is to eliminate said domestic law provision, thus causing legislation to conform to the decision of [the Court].” 10. That the representatives noted that the State “omit[ted] the information on the measures adopted to annul and amend the domestic provisions referring to the criminal definition of 'threats’ that are incompatible with international freedom of expression standards.” Likewise, they highlighted the fact that the manner in which the crime of contempt will be abrogated has not been decided yet. The asked the Court to: i) reiterate the request made to the State “to furnish information on the measures adopted to annul or amend the domestic provisions referring to the criminal definition of 'threat'”, and ii) call upon the State to “furnish updated information on the measures adopted to annul or amend the definition of the crime of contempt as established in the Code of Military Justice." 11. That the Commission reiterated its concern over the State’s failure to furnish specific, adequate and detailed information on the measures adopted in order to comply with the obligation to bring domestic provisions on freedom of thought and expression in line with international standards. It added that, in its last report, the State “did not include any information on the progress made regarding the amendment of section 284 of the Code of Military Justice, which applies the definition of 'threats to the Armed Forces' to punish the crime of 'contempt.’” Therefore, no information is available regarding compliance with this obligation, which, as the State has confirmed, is pending compliance. 12. That the Court observes that although the reports of the State refer to the criminal definition of contempt provided for in section 284 of the Code of Military Justice, they do not refer to the criminal definition of threats provided for in section 264 of the Criminal Code. Information was not made available even after the State was specifically and repeatedly called upon to report on said crime. In this regard, it is worth recalling that, in the Judgment of the instant case, the Court held that "[section 264 of] 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