14. The Commission “recogniz[ed] the actions undertaken by the State in the search for and locating of Mr. Radilla Pacheco or his mortal remains.” However, “it observe[d] that [the State had not] reported on any other follow-up action.” Thus, it requested that the Court require the State to “report on other measures undertaken, as well as the follow-up and continuity it has given to those that have already been carried out.” Finally, the Commission highlighted that it is necessary to prevent the occurrence of “undue delays in the State’s compliance with this reparation measure.” 15. The Court observes that the State has reported on excavations aimed at locating Mr. Radilla Pacheco. However, these excavations took place ten months after notice of the Judgment was served. However, from the information presented by the State (supra Considering Clause 10), it is not possible for the Court to ascertain how the excavations comply with the standards set out in the Judgment with respect to the elements that must be considered in the investigation of facts such as those that occurred in this case, including locating Mr. Radilla Pacheco. The Tribunal has not been informed of other investigations that the State may have been carrying out to that end. 16. Additionally, the Tribunal notes that the State has permitted Ms. Tita Radilla Martínez’s participation, through her representatives and experts, in the aforementioned excavations. However, the Court notes that the representatives affirm that they were informed by a State agent that the excavations could not continue due to a lack of resources and that the continuation of the excavations depended on the accreditation that Ms. Radilla Martínez’s expert could provide for his expertise and on the representatives’ financing the cost of the expert's reports. The Court highlights that in the Judgment it indicated that “for an investigation into a forced disappearance […] to be carried out effectively and with due diligence, all means necessary must be used to promptly implement all measures and inquiries that are timely and necessary to bring the victims’ fate to light and identify those responsible for their disappearance, particularly the disappearance that occurred in this case.” For this purpose, the State must provide the corresponding authorities with the logistic and scientific resources necessary to collect and process evidence and, in particular, the power to access relevant information and documents in order to investigate the alleged facts and obtain clues or evidence of the location of the 8 victims.” Consequently, the State and the representatives are asked to submit updated and detailed information on this matter. C. Regarding the obligation to adopt appropriate legislative reforms in order to make Article 57 of the Code of Military Justice compatible with both international standards on the subject and the American Convention on Human Rights (Operative Paragraph 10 of the Judgment) 17. The State indicated that “the federal executive organ submitted a reform initiative to the Congress of the Union which includes the amendments ordered by the Inter-American Court to Article 57 of the Code of Military Justice.” It affirmed that “the initiative proposes the exclusion of the crimes of forced disappearance of persons, torture, and rape from military jurisdiction so that they fall under [ordinary] jurisdiction.” The initiative also “provides for the obligation of the Military Public Ministry to submit records of investigations, from which it may be possible for the crimes to be inferred, to the Public Ministry of the Federation,” and that “the measures that constitute the record shall not lose their validity, even when if they were carried under [the Code of Military Justice] and 8 Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 5, para. 222. 6