20. Furthermore, regarding the amendment of the Federal Criminal Code ordered in the Judgment, the State affirmed that it had proposed the definition of the crime of forced disappearance appropriately and based on the relevant international standards. In addition, it recalled that in the Order on monitoring compliance with judgment of May 19, 2011, the Inter-American Court had noted that this proposed reform incorporated the elements established in the Judgment and in the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance for an appropriate definition of the crime. 21. For their part, regarding the amendment of the Code of Military Justice, the representatives indicated that “the [decree] that the Mexican State referred to […] is not compatible with what was ordered […] in the Judgment,” because “it only proposes to exclude from the military criminal jurisdiction the crimes of forced disappearance of persons, torture and rape, so that these will fall within the competence of the ordinary courts, [reserving] the authority to investigate and to analyze whether the facts are in keeping with the legal assumptions [to] the Office of the Prosecutor General for Military Justice […].” They indicated, also, that, “since October 2010, 16 amendments have been presented to the Congress of the Union to limit the competence of the military jurisdiction and, at this time, no report has been produced that results in a discussion in the chambers of the Congress of the Union.” Consequently, they affirmed that “the only way in which the State can comply with [this measure of reparation is] by presenting and approving an initiative that is in accordance with the international standards for the protection of human rights established in the Judgment […].” 22. Regarding the said Ruling of the SCJN of July 14, 2011 (supra considering paragraph 5), the representatives indicated that this “constitutes a progressive opinion, but it is not legally binding for other Mexican judges, because [the SCJN] has still not decided the contentious cases that it is hearing on this issue.” They underscored that, “[f]or the said opinion to be obligatory for the authorities, the laws of Mexico establish that it is necessary to produce case law, which will not happen until the [SCJN] decides five cases in the sense indicated; that is, prohibiting the military jurisdiction from hearing cases of human rights violations.” In addition, they indicated that this ruling “is far from constituting a guarantee that [all] cases of human rights violations will be heard promptly by ordinary courts,” because, according to the representatives, “it is a rather fragile element that could change according to the composition of the highest court.” 23. Now, regarding the required amendment of the Federal Criminal Code, the representatives considered that this obligation “will not be complied with until amendments are made to the law, [… adapting] the definition of forced disappearance to the provisions of the international standards.” In addition, they indicated that compliance with the Judgment of the Inter-American Court is an obligation “for the State, not only the Executive”; hence, according to the representatives, “the authorities involved have the obligation to expedite the reforms to ensure that this is implemented.” 24. Lastly, the representatives indicated that the document “Pact for Mexico” establishes that “the legal framework shall be updated to prevent and to punish effectively inhuman and degrading acts, as well as torture, cruelty and forced disappearance,” and that “the framework for the justice system will be restructured so as to ensure that no one has privileges,” and in order to restrict the competence of the military jurisdiction. However, they expressed their concern in view of the fact that compliance with this obligation was not a priority, because, according to this document, the State only planned to initiate the said process of legislative reform in the second half of 2013, despite the fact that more than three years have passed since the Judgment was handed down in this case. 9