38. The representatives stated that no agreement exists with respect to the “realization of the act and the unveiling of the commemorative plaque.” They also expressed their willingness to “maintain the channel of communication with the State open in order to come to an agreement with respect to this point, considering the integrality of the […] document’s contents.” 39. The Commission did not submit observations regarding this point. 40. The Tribunal reminds the parties that in its Judgment it ordered the way in which the public act of acknowledgement of responsibility should be carried out, including particularities such as that the place and date on which it is held should be agreed upon 22 with Mr. Radilla Pacheco's next of kin or their representatives. The Court also indicated that the unveiling of the commemorative plaque could be carried out during the public act 23 or at a later time. The State has submitted information on the efforts made in order to comply with this reparation measure. However, the Court does not have sufficient information on the part of the representatives as to the aspects of the text proposed by the State for the commemorative plaque text and the realization of the public act of acknowledgment of responsibility with which they disagree. The Tribunal highlights that it is necessary that all parties submit specific and detailed information so that the Court may adequately evaluate advances in compliance with the reparation measures ordered. 41. With respect to the representatives’ affirmation that the text of the plaque should refer to the context in which Mr. Radilla Pacheco's forced disappearance took place, the Court reminds the parties that the Judgment indicated that, “Mr. Radilla Pacheco's forced disappearance c[ould] not be isolated from the circumstances in which they […] occurred, and the corresponding legal consequences c[ould] not be determined in the vacuum created 24 by decontextualization.” Notwithstanding the agreements that the representatives and the State may come to, the Court considers it important that the text of the plaque mention that context. That said, with regard to the compliance periods of both reparation measures, the Court considers that although the Judgment did not establish deadlines both should be complied with as soon as possible, provided that the representatives and the State make the necessary agreements, so that the reparation measure fulfills its purpose. The Tribunal values that that the State initiated measures to carry out the act of acknowledgment of responsibility and the unveiling of the plaque before the one-year deadline for the submission of its report on compliance with the Judgment. Therefore, the Court urges the representatives and the State to maintain communications going with the purpose of complying with these reparation measures. H. Obligation to prepare a biographical sketch of the life of Mr. Rosendo Radilla Pacheco (Operative Paragraph 15 of the Judgment) 42. The State indicated that it had already received the representatives authorization for the publication of the biographical sketch ordered by the Court, with an edition of 1000 copies, which, considering the representatives' requests, will include “the full text of the book Voces Acalladas [Silenced Voices] written by Ms. Andrea Radilla,” as well as additional 22 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 5, para. 353. 23 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 5, para. 354. 24 Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 5, para. 116. 14