5 Likewise, the Tribunal points out that the public act of acknowledgment of responsibility was presided over by Mr. Frank La Rue, President of the Presidential Coordinating Commission for the Executive Policy on Human Rights, who also acted by appointment of the President and Vice-President of the Republic. Finally, the Tribunal observes that the State suggested October 16, 2006 as the date on which the public act could be held in its communication of September 13, 2006, that is one month in advance. There is no evidence in the information sent by the representatives that the next of kin of Mr. Bámaca Velásquez requested any type of extension or reconsideration of the date proposed by the State, in order to be able to better coordinate the mentioned act. Therefore, the Court considers that the State fulfilled its duty to hold a public act of acknowledgment of its responsibility in relation to the facts of this case (Third Operative Paragraph of the Judgment on Reparations). * * * 8. That from the information forwarded by the parties, the Court observes that it has insufficient information on some aspects that are pending compliance, therefore it considers it appropriate to request that the State inform on all the measures adopted to comply with: a) The location of the remains of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, their exhumation in the presence of his widow and next of kin, and their return to them (first operative paragraph de the Judgment on reparations); b) The investigation into the facts that gave rise to the violations of the American Convention on Human Rights and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, the identification and punishment of those responsible, as well as the public divulgation of the results of the respective investigation (eighth operative paragraph of the Judgment on merits and second operative paragraph of the judgment on reparations), and c) The adoption of the legislative and any other measures necessary to adapt Guatemalan domestic laws to the international norms of human rights and humanitarian law, and to make these norms fully effective in the domestic sphere (fourth operative paragraph of the Judgment on reparations). 9. That the Court notes that more than five years have elapsed since the Judgment on reparations in this case was delivered (supra Having seen paragraph 2), and it has not yet been fully complied with. 10. That the Court will consider the overall situation of compliance with its Judgments on merits and reparations, and also its Orders in this case (supra Having seen paragraphs 3, 4, and 5), once it receives the pertinent information on the measures pending compliance.