4 this amendment refers to the right to judicial protection and not to political rights as the State argues. It appreciated the explanations provided by the State on the tacit annulment of the above-mentioned article 10(1)(a), but indicated that this norm must be amended expressly using the corresponding legislative procedures, so that its current normative content is clear. The Commission indicated that none of the cases mentioned by the State were related to the factual presumption in question in the case before the Court. Lastly, it underscored that the State had not clarified in any of its reports whether the limitation established in article 10(1)(f) of the LGSMIME, “as a procedural requirement, applies only to electoral matters.” 10. Regarding monitoring compliance with judgment, Article 69(3) of the Rules of Procedure5 establish that: When it deems it appropriate, the Court may convene the State and the victims’ representatives to a hearing in order to monitor compliance with its decisions; the Court shall hear the opinion of the Commission at that hearing. 11. The President notes that, according to the information provided by the State, it has made several changes in its laws and jurisprudence, amending, adding to, and annulling various provisions of the Organic Law of the Federal Judiciary and of the General Law on the procedures for filing challenges concerning electoral matters. In addition, the State has indicated that the amendment or annulment of certain provisions of the LGSMIME and the Amparo Law cannot be inferred from the operative paragraphs of the Court’s judgment, or that this reform has occurred tacitly. For their part, in their observations, both the representatives and the Commission indicated that these amendments are not sufficient to comply with what the Court ordered and that the said provisions must be amended or annulled. 12. Owing to the nature of the operative paragraph pending compliance, and the information and arguments presented by the parties in this regard, the President finds it appropriate to convene a private hearing so that the Inter-American Court may receive complete and updated information from the State on compliance with this aspect of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs handed down in this case, and receive the observations of the representatives of the victim, and the opinion of the Inter-American Commission. THEREFORE: THE PRESIDENT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of the Court’s authority to monitor compliance with its decisions, having consulted with the other judges of the Court, and in accordance with Articles 68(1) of the American Convention, and 15(1) and 69(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, DECIDES: 1. To convene the United Mexican States, the representatives of the victim and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to a private hearing to be held at the seat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on February 20, 2012, at 3 p.m. 5 Approved by the Court at its eighty-fifth regular session held from November 16 to 28, 2009.