3 a) even though two years had elapsed and the terms established by the Court had expired, the Dominican Republic failed to adopt measures aimed at complying with unfulfilled operative paragraphs of Judgment of the Court; b) regarding the sixth operative paragraph, they requested that “[t]he notice of willingness made by the representatives in September, 2005 be deemed ineffective insofar they moved for an omission of the names from the Judgment,” said request was granted by the Court in October, 2005; c) with regard to the seventh operative paragraph, the State had refused to implement the measures aimed at publicly acknowledging its international responsibility and apologizing to the victims; it had also failed to contact them to effectively make the public acknowledgment of state responsibility. They also pointed out that the State had made an interpretation that implied a failure to assume its obligation to comply with the seventh operative paragraph and requested the Court to recall the State that compliance with the obligation to acknowledge its international responsibility and apologize to the victims necessarily implies the participation of the victims, their next of kin and representatives; d) as concerns the payments ordered as compensation, they were able to verify the information submitted by the State as they were present when payments were made. They also noted that no interest was either paid or claimed despite it had accrued for almost six months since expiration of the term for compliance with said obligation; and e) regarding the adoption of domestic legal measures, they considered that, as two years had elapsed and the eighth operative paragraph of the Judgment remained unfulfilled, the likelihood of a legal reform of the procedure and requirements for acquiring Dominican nationality based on late declaration of birth being implemented was low. 6. The briefs submitted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Commission” or the “Inter-American Commission”) on May 19 and December 18, 2006, and November 27, 2007, whereby it presented comments on the means of compliance with the Judgment and stated, inter alia, that: a) the State failed to comply with its obligation to publish the facts and operative paragraphs of the Judgment as ordered by the Court in the sixth operative paragraph of the Judgment. As a consequence, it requested the Court to recall the State its obligation to comply therewith; b) it did not agree with the interpretation made by the State of the seventh operative paragraph of the Judgment. The communication whereby the Court requested the State to afford certain confidentiality to the names of the victims and their next of kin is very clear in that it requested that the names of the victims and their next of kin be omitted in the publication of the relevant parts of the Judgment, but this does not prevent it from organizing a public act to acknowledge its international responsibility and apologizing to the victims and their next of kin; c) it acknowledged the statements of the State regarding payment of the compensations for non-pecuniary damage and reimbursement of costs and expenses made on February 15 and March 21, 2007. It also beheld with satisfaction that the orders of the Court under ninth and tenth operative paragraph of the Judgment had been complied with; and d) it was awaiting further reports from the State on compliance with the remaining obligations set out in the Judgment.