Considerations of the Court 27. The Court finds that the State made the payments to cover medical and psychological treatment. 14 In this regard, the Court notes that it appreciates the efforts by the State to promptly meet the terms of this obligation, and declares that the State has complied with the fourteenth operative paragraph of the Judgment. D. Obligation to introduce, within a reasonable time, the appropriate legislative reforms in order to bring Article 57 of the Code of Military Justice in conformity with international standards on the matter and with the American Convention on Human Rights, and adopt the pertinent legislative reforms so that individuals subject to intervention by the military courts have an effective remedy to challenge their jurisdiction, under the terms of the Judgment (fifteenth operative paragraph) 28. The State reported that, “on October 19, 2010, the Federal Executive had submitted to the Congress of the Union the initiative for the issue of a decree which would reform, repeal, and add to several provisions of the Code of Military Justice, the Statutory Law on the Judicial Power of the Federation, the Federal Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Act Establishing the Minimum Standards on the Rehabilitation of Convicts.” It added that “[o]n April 19, 2012, the Joint Committees on Justice and on Legislative Studies of the Senate had approved the report on the foregoing proposed decree, and had forwarded it to the Plenary of the Senate.” 29. Moreover, the State noted that “in the ruling adopt[ed] within the case file of Various matters 912/2010 15, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation […] had determined that national judges at all levels were obligated to exercise, ex officio, control of conformity with the Convention in the terms established by the InterAmerican Court[. I]n the above-mentioned ruling, the [Supreme Court of the Nation] established that the judges of the ordinary justice system must hear all the cases of human rights violations presumably committed by members of the Armed Forces, and, in that sense, determined that the ordinary courts would have competence to hear all military cases that do not refer solely to military discipline.” 16 14 Copy of the receipts of payment by the State in favor of Messers. Teodoro Cabrera García and Ubalda Cortés Salgado in representation of Mr. Rodolfo Montiel Flores (case file of monitoring of compliance with judgment, tome I, folios 66 to 70). 15 Published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on October 4, 2011. 16 "Interpretive Restriction of the military forum. Incompatibility of the current draft of Article 57, section 11, of the Code of Military Justice, with that provided in Constitutional Article 13, in light of Articles 22 and 8(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights” which determines that: "the Judiciary of the Federation must exercise control of conformity with the Convention ex officio in regard to Article 57, section 11, of the Code of Military Justice, since the current draft of the text is incompatible with that provided in Article 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights [...]. As such, the interpretation of this concept of the Code of Military Justice must be carried out in the sense that given the situations that affect human rights of civilians, under no circumstance can the military jurisdiction function, because when the military courts hear cases involving acts that consist of human rights violations against civilians, they exercise jurisdiction not only in regard to the accused, who must be a person with active military status, but also in regard to the civilian victim, who has the right to participate in the criminal proceeding not only in regard to the respective reparation of the damage, but also in regard to the effective use of their rights to the truth and justice.” Second Report of the State of Mexico on the measures adopted in compliance with the Judgment issued by 10