2 presented their comments on the State’s first report. In this respect, they indicated that the State had not amended its domestic laws and had not complied by eliminating prior censorship in order to allow exhibition of the film “The Last Temptation of Christ.” They also stated that “[i]n view of the gravity of noncompliance with the judgment by the State of Chile [...] and to avoid aggravating international responsibility and another fundamental rights violation by the Chilean Legislature relating to the impaired rights,” they requested the Court to adopt provisional measures. 4. The brief with comments by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) of October 15, 2001, in which it requested the Court: to declare that the State had not adopted the necessary measures to amend its domestic laws; to remind the State of its obligation to do so; to request the State to provide information in this respect, and to order it to allow exhibition of the film “The Last Temptation of Christ.” 5. Note CDH-11,803-137 of October 30, 2001, in which the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”), on the instructions of the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), informed the victims and their representatives, with regard to the request for provisional measures (supra third having seen paragraph), that “the President of the Court [,] having consulted all the judges, consider[ed] that, in addition to not being in the presence of a case of extreme gravity and urgency and of irreparable damage (Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights), this request [was] not a matter for provisional measures but [formed] part of compliance with the judgment on merits and reparations […]”. 6. The brief of the State of November 14, 2001, in which it reported “on progress concerning the measures adopted by the Chilean Government in order to comply with the judgment of the Court.” In this respect, it indicated that “on August 25, 2001, the constitutional reform eliminating cinematographic censorship and substituting it by a system of classification for the exhibition of cinematographic productions, to be regulated by law, was published in the Official Gazette.” 7. Note CDH-11,803/144 of December 6, 2001, in which the Secretariat, on the instructions of the whole Court, requested the State to indicate in its second report on compliance, whether its domestic laws had been amended in order to eliminate prior censorship so as to allow exhibition of the film “The Last Temptation of Christ.” 8. The second report of the State of January 16, 2002, in which it referred to the measures taken to reform the Chilean Constitution so as to establish the right to freedom of artistic creation and to eliminate cinematographic censorship, and indicated that “it [would] take all pertinent steps to ensure[,] using legal and constitutional means, that the draft law on Cinematographic Classification becomes law as soon as possible […], without this signifying interference in the activities of any other power of the State, such as the Legislature[,] thereby guaranteeing appropriate independence between the two Powers.” 9. The brief of February 15, 2002, and is attachment, in which the Commission presented its comments on the State’s second report. In this respect, it requested the Court: to declare that the State had not complied with the judgment of February 5, 2001; to remind the State of its obligation to amend its domestic laws; to request Chile to present information on the measures taken to that effect, and to allow exhibition of the film “The Last Temptation of Christ.”