4 specifically outlines the review process of a criminal judgment when the Inter-American Court orders the annulment of an unlawful sentence, “there are judicial precedents [that] the State [...] should have explored.” In addition, they considered that with the adoption of the law that decriminalizes slander and libel, “a speedy ruling via a judicial review, based on the retroactive application of the more benign criminal law” could be obtained. Finally, they indicated that the death of Mr. Kimel does not limit the presentation of a petition for review, given that the Criminal Procedural Code of the Nation provides for the possibility that, in the case of the death of the offender, the descendants or ancestors present it. 14. The Commission observed that the obligation to leave the criminal charge without effect, even though related, has a different content to that of the obligation to eliminate the criminal records. Similarly, the Commission observed that the State has not objected to considering the request made by the representatives, in relation to obtaining a judicial decision that declares that the criminal charge is without effect, due to which it stated that it would await for Argentina “to refer, in detail, to the consulted state agencies, the dates of said consultations, and the timeframes in which it hopes to have an answer regarding the viable alternatives in the Argentine body of law.” Likewise, it considered important that the State refer “to the routes mentioned by the representatives.” 15. The Tribunal observes that the information presented by the State is not clear as to what are the “practical consequences”, of the criminal judgment against Mr. Kimel, that have been left without effect, nor under which mechanism. The Court recalls that paragraph 123 of the Judgment states that “the State [must] annul such judgment in all respects, including its effects as far as third parties are concerned.” These effects are not limited to the elimination of Mr. Kimel's criminal records, which constitutes an additional measure of reparation (infra Considering Clauses 16 to 19). Therefore, the Tribunal states that compliance with the present obligation is pending and requests the State, within the period prescribed in the operative paragraphs of this Order, to submit complete and detailed information on the measures taken for its effective implementation, including dates, deadlines, results and actions taken as a result of the opinions of the legal and technical services referred to by the State in the information provided to the Court (supra Considering Clause 12). * * * 16. In regard to the obligation to immediately eliminate Mr. Kimel’s name from the public records wherein he appears with a criminal history in relation to the present case (eighth operative paragraph), the State indicated that “Mr. Kimel’s criminal history has been eliminated from all public records.” Likewise, the State attached a copy of a communication from the Secretary of National Security of the Ministry of Justice, Security and Human Rights with the notes issued by the National Gendarmerie, Naval Prefecture, Airport Security Police and the Federal Police of Argentina, wherein “[the] said security forces informed on the compliance with said order.” 17. The representatives confirmed that “[i]n effect […] Mr. Kimel’s name was removed from the public criminal records.” 18. The Commission considered “this obligation […] should be deem[ed] satisfied.” 19. Given the evidence submitted and taking into account the information presented by the Parties, the Court considers that the State has fully complied with the eighth operative paragraph of the Judgment. * * *