d. Notification to the State.- The Report on Merits was notified to the State on December 28, 2016. It was granted a term of two months to report on compliance with the recommendations. Subsequently, the Commission granted four extensions to the State. 3. Submission to the Court. – On April 28, 2018, the Commission submitted the case to the Court, concerning all of the facts and human rights violations described in Report on Merits No. 47/16. It asked the Court to declare the international responsibility of the State for the violations indicated in the Report on Merits and to establish reparation measures. II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 4. Notification to the State and to the representatives of the alleged victims 7.- The case was notified to Mexico and to the representatives of the alleged victims on June 8, 2018. 5. Friendly settlement agreement.- On November 13, 2018, the Court received from Mexico a document dated October 19, 2018, named “Friendly settlement agreement and acknowledgment of responsibility by Mexico in Case No. 12,659, Mirey Trueba Arciniega and next of kin” (hereinafter “the friendly settlement agreement”, “friendly settlement” or “the Agreement”), subscribed by the representatives and the State. 6. Observations of the Commission and the representatives.- In view of the State’s request for sanctioning of the friendly settlement agreement, the representatives and the Commission submitted their respective observations on November 19, 2018. 7. Deliberation of the case.- The Court began the deliberation of this Judgment on November 27, 2018. period of time under the ordinary criminal jurisdiction, in order to fully elucidate the facts, identify all potential liability and impose the appropriate punishment for the human rights violations declared in the Report on Merits. The State may not oppose the application of the principle of ne bis in idem in order to comply with this obligation, in light of the fact that the final decision in the domestic courts was the result of a trial that violated the guarantee of a competent judge, independence, impartiality and the duty to investigate with due diligence; (3) Take the appropriate administrative, disciplinary or criminal measures with regard to acts or omissions of state agents who contributed to the denial of justice and impunity in the facts of the case; (4) Adopt measures of non-repetition to include legislative, administrative and any other type of measure for the purpose of: (i) Limiting the use of the Armed Forces in duties of law enforcement and citizen security to exceptional situations and ensuring strict compliance with preventive measures of regulation, training, equipping, oversight of the use of force, in keeping with the standards described in the Report on Merits; and (ii) Strengthening the institutions in charge of the investigation and the judicial authorities in charge of prosecution and punishment of these types of cases, in order to make sure that they perform their duties in strict compliance with the different aspects comprising the duty of due diligence, in keeping with the standards described in the Report on Merits. The representatives of the alleged victims are the Commission for Solidarity and the Defense of Human Rights (COSYDDHAC) and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL). 7 4