11 37. The Commission requested the Court “to declare that the criminal proceeding, the criminal sentence, and the effects thereof –including the additional civil sanction- imposed on Eduardo Kimel for researching into certain events, writing a book, and publishing information[,] necessarily restrai[n] the dissemination and reproduction of information on issues of public interest, thus discouraging the public debate on issues which are relevant to the Argentine society.” It further requested the Court to declare the violation of the duty to adapt the domestic legislation “as a result of keeping in full force and effect legal provisions which unreasonably restrict the free circulation of opinions on the officials acts of public authorities.” 38. The representatives agreed with the Commission and considered that the criminal definitions used in the instant case “may be applied to bring criminal actions for political criticism,” whereby they “are not in conformity with Article 13 of the Convention.” 39. The State acquiesced to the parties’ claims, pointing out that “[the] criminal conviction of Mr. […] Kimel constituted a violation of his right to freedom of thought and expression” and that “the inaccuracy of the criminal legislation punishing defamation and preventing freedom of thought and expression from being preserved, entails the violation o[f Article 2 of the Convention].” At the public hearing, the State “regret[ted …] that the only person ever convicted for the massacre of the clergymen belonging to the Palotine Order was precisely the journalist who thoroughly investigated such dreadful massacre and its judicial handling.” 40. The Court notes that despite the acknowledgement of facts made by the State and its acquiescence to various claims, it is still necessary to determine the significance and seriousness of the violations committed, as well as the scope of the domestic criminal legislation in force which may be used to curtail freedom of thought and expression. The determination of the foregoing will be a contribution to the development of case law on this matter and to the appropriate protection of human rights. * * * 41. Eduardo Kimel is a historian graduated from Buenos Aires University, Argentina. He has worked as a journalist, a writer, and an investigative historian.24 His book “La masacre de San Patricio” (the San Patricio Massacre) was published in November 1989.25 This book deals with the murder of five clergymen of the Palotine Order committed in Argentina on July 4, 1976, during the last military dictatorship.26 42. In the above-mentioned book, Mr. Kimel examined, inter alia, the judicial investigation into the massacre. Regarding the judicial decision adopted on October 7, 1977, he pointed out that the federal judge hearing the case: adopted all applicable steps and procedures. He collected the police reports containing the preliminary information, requested and had forensic and ballistics reports made, and summoned to appear a number of people who might be able to provide information for the elucidation of the case. Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. 24 Cf. Statement rendered by Eduardo Kimel at the public hearing (supra para. 9). 25 Cf. Kimel, Eduardo, La masacre de San Patricio (San Patricio Massacre), Ediciones Lohlé-Lumen, second edition, 1995 (record of appendixes to the application, Volume I, Appendix 8, folio 217). 26 Cf. Kimel, Eduardo, La masacre de San Patricio (San Patricio Massacre), supra note 25 (p. 13).