C. Arguments of the Commission 10. The Inter-American Commission assessed positively the information provided by the State “with regard to the implementation of the act on November 17, 2011.” Nevertheless, it observed with concern the failure of the representatives to take part in this public act of acknowledgement of responsibility and, therefore, found that this “prevents considering that this aspect of the judgment has been complied with.” Consequently, it asked the Court to request information from the parties on the measures that could be adopted in the near future to comply fully with this obligation. D. Considerations of the Court 11. The information in the case file indicates that the representatives and the State concur that they held several meetings in order to reach agreement on the details of the public act of acknowledgement of responsibility and the unveiling of the plaque recalling the forced disappearance of Rosendo Radilla Pacheco, both ordered in the judgment. Originally, this public act was going to be held on November 14, 2011. To this end, the details of the event had been approved by the representatives; however, they insisted that the Minister of the Interior attend the said act. In this regard, in its judgment, the Court ordered that the public act of acknowledgement of responsibility should be held, inter alia, in the presence of senior national authorities and the next of kin of Mr. Radilla Pacheco.” Therefore, even though the judgment did not specifically require the presence of the Mexican Minister of the Interior, the Court takes note that, nevertheless, the State made a major effort, to ensure that the said official could attend this public act. However, owing to his death, the act was postponed. Finally, the public act to acknowledge responsibility and to unveil the plaque took place on November 17, 2011, in Atoyac de Álvarez, Guerrero. 12. The judgment also ordered that the “State and the next of kin of Mr. Radilla Pacheco and/or their representatives reach agreement on how [the public act of acknowledgement of responsibility] is held, as well as on its details, such as the place and date.” In this regard, the information provided by the parties reveals that agreements already existed between the representatives and the State regarding the program of the public act of acknowledgement of responsibility, the place where it would be held, the text of the plaque to be unveiled, the speech that the Minister of the Interior would give, and the paragraphs of the judgment that would be read during the act. In this regard, the Court does not find that the information presented by the representatives includes satisfactory reasons to consider that Mr. Radilla Pacheco’s next of kin were faced with insurmountable obstacles to attend the act held on November 17, 2011. Even though the representatives only received one day’s notice of when it would be held, the level of the State officials whose presence was confirmed, which included two State Ministers, at least one of them at the request of the representatives themselves, and the fact that the essential aspects of the act had been agreed previously with the representatives, merited the next of kin of Rosendo Radilla Pacheco making an effort to attend the public act of acknowledgement of responsibility. In addition, it is on record that the State offered them any assistance they required to be able to attend. 13. Based on the information submitted by the parties, together with the documentary support provided, the Court finds that the State has complied with the fourteenth operative paragraph of the judgment delivered in this case (supra having seen paragraph 1). 5