The State shall prepare a bibliographical sketch of the life of Mr. Rosendo Radilla
Pacheco, in accordance with paragraphs 355 through 356 of the […] Judgment.
The State shall provide free psychological and/or psychiatric attention immediately,
adequately, and effectively, through its specialized public health institutions, to the victims
declared in the […] Judgment that request it, in accordance with paragraphs 357 through 358
The State shall pay the amounts awarded in paragraphs 365, 370, 375, and 385 of the
[…] Judgment as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, and the
reimbursement of costs and expenses, as appropriate, within a one-year as of the date that
notice of the […] Judgment is served, in accordance with paragraphs 360 through 392 therein.

The communications of April 27, May 12, and December 1, 15, and 29, 2010, as well
as the communications of 28 January and 15 February 2011, in which the United Mexican
States (hereinafter “the State” or “Mexico”) submitted information on its compliance with
the Judgment issued by the Court in the present case (supra Having Seen 1).
The briefs of December 15, 2010 and March 3, 2011, through which the
representatives of the victims (hereinafter “the representatives”) submitted their
observations on the information submitted by the State (supra Having Seen 2).
The communications of February 8, and April 13, 2011, whereby the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Inter-American Commission" or "the
Commission") submitted its observations on the information submitted by the State and the
representatives (supra Having Seen 3).
The communication of December 16, 2010, in which the Human Rights Committee of
the Bar of England and Wales and the Solicitor’s International Human Rights Group
submitted an amicus curiae brief.
Monitoring compliance with its decisions is an inherent power to the jurisdictional
functions of the Court.
Mexico is a State party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter
"the American Convention" or "the Convention") since March 24, 1981, and it acknowledged
the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on December 16, 1998. Furthermore, the State
ratified the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons on April 9,
Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that "[t]he State Parties to the
Convention undertake to comply with the decision of the Court in any case to which they
are parties." To this end, States should ensure the domestic implementation of provisions
set forth in the Court's rulings.1

Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para.
60; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of December 22, 2010, Considering Clauses 3 and 4, and Case of Tibi v. Ecuador.
Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 3, 2011,
Considering Clause 3.


Select target paragraph3