5 obligations of the State Parties bind all the branches and bodies of the State,5 including the bodies of the Judicial Branch. Consequently, although it positively values the collaboration offered by the representatives of the victim to comply with this duty, the Court reiterates that it is the State’s, by means of the appropriate bodies, responsibility to adopt the necessary measures to fully comply with that set forth by the Court, even if there is a recourse that may be initiated by the victim or his next of kin, under domestic law. However, due to the willingness shown by the representatives regarding the filing of the aforementioned recourse so as to expedite compliance with the Judgment and the willingness of the State to send the aforementioned amicus curiae, the Tribunal continues to await information from the representatives and the State regarding the development and result of the aforementioned application for review, in the understanding that it is the duty of the State to adopt the measures necessary to comply, through its own initiative6, with that set forth by this Court, complying within six months from the notification of the Judgment. 12. Furthermore, the Tribunal takes note of the request of the representatives regarding the incidental expenses that could be incurred through the aforementioned application for review (supra Considering Clause 0). Accordingly, the Court considers that compliance with the reparation measures provided for in the Judgment shall not entail new expenditure for the victim and his next of kin, such as those entailed by filing a new judicial application and its processing.7 Therefore, the Tribunal requires the State, in its next report on Compliance with the Judgment, to refer specifically to this request of the representatives. 13. By virtue of the foregoing considerations, the Court deems that the reparation ordered in operative paragraph seven of the Judgment is pending compliance, and requests the State to submit detailed and complete information regarding the measures and actions adopted for the effective and total compliance with this reparation measure. II. Regarding the obligation to perform a public act of acknowledgement of responsibility (operative paragraph ten of the Judgment) 14. The State reported that on July 5, 2010, it performed a public act of acknowledgement of responsibility, that took place in the offices of the Legal and Social Studies Center (hereinafter “CELS”), an organization that acts as the representative in this case, and it was led by the President of the Argentinean Nation. Likewise, it stated that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship; the Minister of Justice, Security, and Human Rights; the Secretary of Human Rights; and the President of CELS were also present. By virtue of the foregoing, it requested that the present operative paragraph is deemed to be complied with. 15. The representatives agreed with the information submitted by the State and added that the mother and the daughter of Mr. Eduardo Kimel, and recognized journalists and 5 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi and others v. Peru. Compliance with the Judgment. Order of November 17, 1999, Series C No. 59, Considering third; Case De la Cruz Flores v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering Clause three, and Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama, supra note 1, Considering Clause five. 6 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Monitoring of Compliance the Judgment. Order of the Court of September 22, 2006, Considering Clause sixteen. 7 Cf. Case of "Instituto de Reeducación del Menor" v. Paraguay. Monitoring of Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Court of November 19, 2009, Considering Clause forty-six.