a) [the] organiz[ation of] a public act acknowledging […] international responsibility and apologiz[ing] to the victims Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico, and to Leonidas Oliven Yean, Tiramen Bosico Cofi[,] and Teresa Tucent Mena, with the participation of state authorities, the victims[,] and their next of kin, as well as their representatives, and [the] disseminat[ion] [of the act] in the media (radio, press[,] and television) (operative paragraph seven of the Judgment); and b) [the] adopt[ion] within [the State’s] domestic legislation, in accordance with Article 2 of the American Convention, [of] the legislative, administrative[,] and […] other measures needed to regulate the procedure[s] and requirements [for the] acqui[sition of] Dominican nationality through late registration of birth (operative paragraph eight of the Judgment). AND DECID[ED]: 1. To call upon the State to adopt all measures necessary to promptly and effectively comply with the outstanding operative paragraphs as stipulated in declarative point two above, pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. 2. To require the State to submit before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, by February 2, 2010 at the latest, a report indicating all of the measures adopted to comply with the outstanding reparations ordered by this Court, pursuant to Considering Clauses 14[,] 15[,] and 24 to 27. […] 5. The briefs of February 2 and 3, 2011, wherein the State of the Dominican Republic (hereinafter “the State” or “the Dominican Republic”) presented the Court with the legislation that had been adopted in order to comply with the Judgment, and reiterated its willingness to carry out the public act of acknowledgment of international responsibility. 6. The communication of February 15, 2011, wherein the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”), following instructions of the President of the Court, again requested that the State present a report to complement the information provided in the abovementioned briefs, no later than March 15, 2011. Similarly, on this same day the representatives of the victims (hereinafter “the representatives”) and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) received the information presented by the State, and were informed that once the complementary report was received, it would be forwarded to them in order for their observations to be made. 7. The communication of March 15, 2011, wherein the State reported that it would provide the information requested by the Court in the following days. The communication of March 24, 2011, wherein the Secretariat granted an additional and non-extendable period ending April 23, 2011, in order for the State to submit the requested information. The communications of June 9 and September 12, 2011, wherein the Secretariat, in light of the expiration of the period of time provided, reiterated its requirement to the State, in order for it to provide the additional report being requested. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Monitoring compliance with decisions is a power inherent to the judicial functions of the Court. 2. The Dominican Republic has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since April 19, 1978, and acknowledged the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on March 25, 1999. 2