13 a “Preliminary Draft Law Amending the Penal Code” wherever necessary” (supra Having Seen 5(e) and 6(e)); h) publication of the Court’s Judgment in the Official Gazette El Peruano and dissemination of its contents via other media (operative paragraph 5(d) of the November 30, 2001 Judgment on reparations). The State has not reported on its compliance with this measure; i) inclusion, in the Supreme Resolution ordering publication of the agreement, of “a public expression of apology to the victims for the grave damages caused” and confirmation of its determination not to allow this type of event to occur again” (operative paragraph 5(e) of the November 30, 2001 Judgment on reparations). The State made no reference to its compliance with these measures; and j) the memorial monument that was to have been erected (operative paragraph 5(f) of the November 30, 2001 Judgment on reparations). The State reported that it coordinated with the Mayor of Lima on erecting a memorial honoring the victims of the Barrios Altos case and that it “coordinated” with an artist on the design of an image in memory of the victims. The representatives said that they agreed with the State’s decision, but requested that the State be asked when this measure of reparation would be completed. The Court must point out that, according to what the parties established in the agreement on reparations, approved by the Court in the Judgment on reparations, that monument was to have been erected “within 60 days of the date the agreement was signed.” 10. The Court will consider the general status of compliance with its Judgments on merits and reparations and its Order of November 28, 2003 and this Order once it receives the relevant information on the measures whose compliance is still pending. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of its authority to monitor compliance with its rulings and in accordance with articles 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65, 67 and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, articles 25(1) and 30 of its Statute and Article 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, DECLARES: 1. That in accordance with the terms of Considering eight of the present Order, the State has fully complied with the terms of operative paragraph 5(c) of the Court’s November 30, 2001 Judgment on reparations as regards the commitment to initiate “the procedure to sign and promote ratification of the International Convention on the Non-applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity”. 2. That it will continue to monitor for compliance with the pending obligations in the present case, specifically: