6 reparation of victims, and therefore their presence, participation and agreement, with the details of the execution of the act, are particularly relevant.” 27. The Court values greatly the reference, to the present case, made by the President of the Republic within the framework of the Extraordinary Session of the Inter-American Commission. However, the Court notes that the words of the President in said ceremony do not constitute a recognition of responsibility for the violation of, inter alia, the freedom of expression of the victim. In fact, the words of the President, according to the information provided by the State, reveal the will of the Executive to initiate the implementation of another measure of reparation ordered in the Judgment, that is, the adaptation of domestic law to the Convention’s terms on freedom of expression, regarding the crimes of libel and slander. The Court also observes that, according to the representatives (supra Considering clause 25), the victim was not informed nor was present at the mentioned event, but instead learnt of it and thus, of the reference to his case, because the speech by the President of the Republic was shown through a “national public broadcast”, as was indicated by the State. For all the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal considers that the act carried out on September 11, 2009, is not sufficient to be considered a satisfactory measure of reparation in regard to the violations committed. 28. Additionally, the Court considers it necessary to observe that compliance with this measure of redress is still pending, despite the death of Mr. Kimel. Measures of satisfaction, such as the present one, have effects on the recovery of the memory of the victims, the restoration of their dignity, as a consolation for their next of kin, or as an official message of disapproval for the human rights violations in question and of commitment to the efforts to ensure that they do not happen again.5 Public acts of acknowledgment of responsibility by the State, as the one ordered in the Judgment, serve the dual purpose of providing satisfaction to the victim and his family, by restoring his dignity, and serving as a guarantee of non-repetition of the violations committed. This has been the view of this Tribunal in numerous occasions.6 Accordingly, the Court considers that in the instant case the State must comply with this measure of reparation both to avoid repetition of similar events, as well as to bring a sense of dignity to the memory of the victim. Likewise, the Court also considers that to ensure that the said recognition of responsibility fulfills its effectiveness (effet utile), the State must seek the participation, cooperation and agreement of the family of the victim, in regard to its compliance. 29. On the other hand, although the Court values the steps mentioned by the State so as to hold a public act of acknowledgement of responsibility according to the victim’s wishes (supra Considering Clause 24), it notes that the deadline to fulfill this obligation expired on November of 2008, more than a year before the victim’s passing, without it being complied with to date. The Court regrets the lack of timely fulfillment of this obligation by the State, since the contrary would have made it possible for the victim to be present. Finally, the Court requests the State to adopt, without delay, all measures necessary to ensure effective compliance with the tenth operative paragraph of the Judgment. * * * 30. In relation to the obligation to bring its domestic legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights, so that the inaccuracies 5 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84. 6 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 235; Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 193, and Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 150.