5 participated in any of the definitions, orientations, or methodologies included in the Inter-institutional Technical Team’s Report. 12. That at the public hearing for monitoring compliance the representatives indicated that the information presented by the State “almost five years after the time period granted for compliance of [this reparation measure] had expired refers once again to the realization of preliminary stages in the elaboration of the policy to which it is compelled.” They considered that it was reason for concern that despite the time that had gone by the process is still in a preliminary stage and that they are just now designing the actions to be carried out for the definition of a public policy. Likewise, they stated that the acknowledgment of responsibility and the elaboration of the public policy should be simultaneous, since they are part of the same reparation measure according to the terms of the Judgment. They concluded that the State’s obligation to respect the present operative paragraph of the Judgment has not been complied with and that the information provided evidences “a path for progress towards compliance with the obligations, but [also] that it is in very initial stages.” 13. That based on the information provided by the parties, the Inter-American Commission observed that this obligation is still pending compliance and that it was awaiting more specific information in this regard. It pointed out that it considers that the elaboration of this policy “is an element of fundamental importance for the nonrepetition of the facts [of the J]udgment.” 14. That during the public hearing of monitoring compliance the Commission proposed to the State that it record in an memorandum “specific commitments [with] precise dates or reasonably predictable terms” to comply with the measures of reparation, since it considered that the pending processes or matters did not refer to complex issues that required a lot of time or that depended on State bodies different to the Executive Power. It considered that in order to fully comply with this Judgment “it is not enough to plan the compliance and let time go by.” It added that this Judgment is especially different because of the subjects involved, who are in highly vulnerable situations, “where the State’s response has to correspond to the subject’s quality and not only to the general obligation to respond before the [Inter-American] System.” Therefore, it highlighted the need to have the State’s commitment expressed through specific actions and commitments, within precise time periods recorded in a memorandum before the Court so that the latter can give them the correct follow-up. 15. That the Court recalls that the time period established for the compliance of the present obligation was of six months computed as of the notification of the Judgment and that, therefore, it expired in March 2005. Despite the fact that more than four years and eight months have gone by since that term expired, this obligation has not been fulfilled. In this regard, the Tribunal observes that the process promoted for the elaboration of the public policy in matters of children in conflict with the law is in its initial stages, which is of concern in light of the time that has gone by. 16. That the Court takes note that the State committed itself through the Time Line to “elaborate public apologies, in consultation with the Civil Society with the objective of holding a Public Act of acknowledgment of international responsibility, and make the statement that contains the Public Policy in matters of children in conflict with the law,” in June 2010. In that sense, the Tribunal recalls that to the effect of holding the public act of acknowledgment of international responsibility and of the statement that includes the elaboration of a State policy in matters of children in conflict with the law, Paraguay shall consult with the victims, their next of kin, and their representatives.