updated information regarding the effective implementation of the amendments to the Code of Military Justice that was ordered. 39. With respect to adapting domestic legislation to guarantee the existence of an effective remedy to challenge the jurisdiction of the military courts, the Court appreciates the change to the Constitution promulgated on January 6, 2011, in which the process of the amparo was modified. However, the State did not explain how such reform would have a concrete impact on the existence of an adequate and effective remedy to challenge the jurisdiction of the military criminal courts. Furthermore, the Court notes that the State advised that it would be processing a new law of amparo, as well as reforms to the Code of Military Justice in this sense. However, the Court reiterates that, in order to comply with this part of the Judgment, “the State shall not limit its actions to ‘promoting’ the corresponding bill, but it shall guarantee its prompt sanction and entry into force, pursuant with the procedures established in its domestic legal system in that sense.” 24 Therefore, the Court orders that the State submit detailed information regarding its compliance with this point. E. The State shall adopt, within a reasonable period of time and within the framework of existing register of detainees in Mexico, appropriate supplementary measures in order to reinforce the operation and usefulness of said system (sixteenth operative paragraph) 40. Regarding the supplementary measures to reinforce the operation and usefulness of the existing register of detainees in Mexico, the State noted that, “[t]he Administrative Register of Detentions is one of the databases comprising the National Public Security System […]. This Register consists of information furnished by police officers from the three branches of government that perform arrests, who must also provide immediate notification to the National Information Center through the Endorsed Police Report.” It added that, “[a]ll of the authorities at the three levels of government to which the law applies are required to share their databases with the Center” and that “[t]o date, the national databases under the responsibility of the National Information Center have accumulated 3,250,093 notifications of arrests between 2010 and 2012.” 41. Furthermore, the State reported that “[o]n February 28, 2012, the Secretariats of the Interior, the Defense, the Navy, and the Public Security, and the Public Prosecution Service of the Prosecutor General’s Office celebrated and made available the ‘Covenant of collaboration in the context of respect for human rights,’ whose purpose was to establish protocols on issues of chain of custody, legitimate use of force and detention.” It further stated that “on April 23, 2012, such protocols were published in the Official Gazette,” and that, therein, “it was established […] that security forces and authorities in the administration and enforcement of justice have an obligation to develop the endorsed police report, so that an arrest can be properly registered by the National Center of Information.” 42. On another note, the State also referred to the SIRED (Detainee Registration System), which “seeks to establish a record of arrests of persons turned over to the public prosecution service of the federation or delivered or detained by the Public 24 Case of Radilla Pacheco V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 344. 14