out, and that they were never contacted for the purpose of concerting “a date for the publication.” 35. The Commission stated that “the information available indicates that the State has complied with this order of the [J]udgment.” 36. The Court observes that the information provided by the parties indicates that the State fully complied with this reparation measure before the deadline established in the Judgment expired. G) Obligation to carry out a public act of acknowledgement of responsibility with regard to the facts of the present case and in order to restore the memory of Mr. Rosendo Radilla Pacheco and to place a plaque in the city of Atoyac de Álvarez (Guerrero) commemorating his forced disappearance (Operative Paragraph 14 of the Judgment) 37. With respect to the public act of acknowledgement, the State affirmed that “over the course of 2010, it […] has reiterated to the representatives of the victims its willingness to carry out [that] ceremony as soon as possible and to arrive at a consensus on the way this reparation measure should be complied with.” It indicated that it understood that this reparation measure should be carried out within one year, as the Judgment does not set out a deadline for compliance. With respect to the commemorative plaque, it affirmed that “the State submitted a proposal for its text and reiterated its willingness to comply with the [J]udment, as well as its understanding that the unveiling of the plaque should also be carried out within one year,” as the Judgment does not set out a specific deadline for compliance, and it should be carried out “in the context of the public act of acknowledgement of responsibility.”21 It indicated that the representatives considered that the plaque should also include “an acknowledgement of the context of the systematic human rights violations that occurred during the so-called 'Dirty War,'” but that the State considered that it had made an effort to include in its proposal practically all of the representatives' suggestions and that, in its opinion, “the text of the proposal fully complies with the orders of the [J]udgment.” The State also indicated that the representatives had expressed that “the unveiling of the plaque does not have to be carried out within one year as of the publication of the [J]udgment, and that they had other reasons that they would have to carefully consider in order to come to an agreement on the fulfillment of this order.” Thus, the State signaled its commitment to “maintaining channels of communication open with the representatives of the victims for the purpose of coming to an agreement on the public act of acknowledgment of responsibility and on the unveiling of the plaque, and its commitment to informing the Court on the results of these measures.” 21 The State proposed the following text for the commemorative plaque: The State of Mexico unveils this plaque in memory and as an acknowledgment of its international responsibility for the human rights violations derived from the forced disappearance of Mr. Rosendo Radilla Pacheco, social defender, on 25 August 1974. This is done in compliance with the order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights which handed down a Judgment in the Case of Rosendo Radilla Pacheco v. United Mexican States on 23 November 20[09]. This lamentable event has given invaluable lessons to the Mexican nation. The State of Mexico recognizes the inexhaustible and continuous search of victims for justice, truth, and reparation. 13