29. In response to its acknowledgment of responsibility, the State argued that it was unnecessary to make observations regarding the merits of the case and confirmed on a number of occasions its willingness to reopen the dialogue process with the victims in order to jointly advance in the compliance with the agreed points. 30. Regarding compliance with the commitments agreed, the State first pointed out that the acknowledgment of responsibility was disseminated through the publication of the text of Decree 812 in two newspapers with national circulation. It also reported that the Grossman report is published and available on the website of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights. 31. On the other hand, with regard to the investigation, the State reported that it has provided various resources to the Prosecution Unit in charge of the Investigation of the AMIA Attack under the Public Ministry (UFI AMIA) in order to guarantee a survey of all the information on the case that was on file with the Federal Intelligence Agency (AFI). In this regard, the State indicated that through Decrees 395/15 and 229/17 the declassification of all the documentation, notes, reports, and resolutions related to the investigation of the attack was ordered, which would be organized, systematized, preserved, and analyzed by the UFI AMIA. 32. The State also indicated that the AMIA Unit of the Ministry of Justice was strengthened, allowing the Executive Power to have an active participation as plaintiff in the processes related to the cover-up. 33. Regarding the measures of general scope to avoid the repetition of events such as those that occurred, the State detailed the progress made in creating a unit specialized in emergency management. It also mentioned the creation, in February 2015, of the Federal Intelligence Agency (AFI) through law 27.126. Regarding access to intelligence information by judges in investigations related to acts of terrorism, the State detailed the institutional channels through which the information would be shared since the creation of the AFI, and reported on the establishment of a Commission for the creation of a bank for data protection and intelligence files. 34. Finally, and regarding specific reparations for the victims of the AMIA attack, the State highlighted the enactment of Law No. 27.139 that establishes the right to obtain compensation for those who died or suffered serious or very serious injuries and their successors. Likewise, it indicated that the payment of costs and fees for the national and international proceedings has been handed over to the Ministry of Justice in order to continue its process. IV. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY BY THE ARGENTINE STATE 35. The State recognized its international responsibility by signing an agreement act with the petitioners and the IACHR on March 4, 2005. Said document states that: The Government recognizes the responsibility of the Argentine State for the violation of the human rights denounced by the petitioners in the presentation made to the IACHR in this case: right to life (Art 4 of the American Convention); right to humane treatment (art. 5 AC); right to a fair trial (art. 8 AC) and right to judicial protection (art. 25 AC); and the guarantee obligation (art. 1.1 AC), in the following terms. In this sense, the State acknowledges the responsibility since there was a breach of the prevention duty for not having adopted the appropriate and effective measures to try to prevent the attack, taking into account that two years before the event another terrorist act had occurred against the embassy of Israel in Argentina. The State acknowledges the responsibility because there was a cover-up of the facts, because there was a serious and deliberate failure to carry out the investigation function of the illegal act that occurred on July 18, 1994, and because this failure to carry out an adequate investigation led to a clear denial of justice. All of this was declared by the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 3 of the City of Buenos Aires in its judgment of October 29, 2004. 36. The Commission observes that, at the hearing held in the framework of its 174° period of sessions, the State referred to the acknowledgment of responsibility made in 2005 and the friendly settlement process concluded in 2012. On that occasion, the representatives of the State indicated that, despite the conclusion of 7