5 b) The amendment to Electoral Act No. 331 of 2000, so that it clearly regulates the consequences of non-compliance with electoral participation requirements, the procedures to be followed by the Supreme Electoral Council in finding such non-compliance, and the reasoned decisions to be adopted by said Council, as well as the rights of those whose participation is affected by a decision of the State (tenth operative paragraph of the Judgment of June 23, 2005); and c) The reform of the regulation of those requirements established in Electoral Act No. 331 of 2000 that were found to be in violation of the American Convention and the adoption of such measures as may be required for the members of indigenous and ethnic communities to be able to effectively take part in election processes according to their values, customs, and traditions (eleventh operative paragraph of Judgment of June 23, 2005). 16. That in its report of January 25, 2008 (supra Having Seen clause 3), the State informed that “it had formed an inter-institutional work team made up of representatives of the National Assembly of the Republic, the Supreme Electoral Council, the Attorney General’s Office, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who are working on the discussion and study of the amendment to the Electoral Act.” The State further pointed out that “the amendment to the Electoral Act is a complex process, as it entails the amendment to Article 173 of the Political Constitution and the amendment to Article 5 of the Amparo Act No. 49 in force,” whereby the inter-institutional work team “is drawing up a work plan to be carried out during 2008 so that the possibility of including the amendment on the legislative agenda may be considered.” As an Annex to its report of January 25, 2008, the State forwarded a draft of the bill of amendment to the Electoral Act. Besides, in its report of March 14, 2007, the State of Nicaragua argued that it is necessary that the proposal for the amendment to the Electoral Act be formulated after “due consultation with and participation of the indigenous communities.” In particular, it acknowledged that, “the participation of YATAMA is of the utmost importance so that the objectives of the amendment proposed may be achieved.” 17. That in their observations on the State’s reports (supra Having Seen clause 4), the representatives pointed out that since its report of January 2006, the State has referred to a draft bill to amend the Electoral Act which is still in the planning stage and for which purpose a work team is being formed, whereby they consider that these operative paragraphs have not been complied with. Furthermore, they reiterated that said bill of amendment to the Electoral Act should must be drafted in consultation with the leaders of YATAMA and of the indigenous peoples, and that the State “must adopt the necessary measures so that the Indigenous Communities of the Atlantic Coast may participate in the discussion and adoption of the legislative reforms” referred to in the Judgment of the Court. 18. That the Commission expressed its concern for the lack of information showing progress in the compliance with the above-mentioned operative paragraphs of the Judgment rendered by the Court and argued that it is imperative that “pertinent information be provided about the actions adopted by the State in order to comply with said provisions within a reasonable time.” Furthermore, the Commission took into consideration that the State had formed a work team and that it had prepared a draft bill of amendment, but expressed its concern about the lack of participation of the indigenous communities in said process. In this regard, it pointed out that it is necessary