to the Plenary of the Senate[, but] the State fail[ed] to report that the Senate coordinators of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional [Institutional Revolutionary Party] (PRI for its acronym in Spanish) and the Partido Acción Nacional [National Action Party] (PAN for its acronym in Spanish) had withdrawn the initiative, thereby preventing that it be voted on.” 33. In reference to the remarks from the State on the position of the Supreme Court of Justice as to the jurisdiction of the military courts to decide issues related to violations of human rights of civilians, the representatives commented that “these measures have not yet led to the issuance of compulsory jurisprudence to define the precise scope of the competence of military courts in binding terms –solely- for the judicial authorities of the country.” They further noted that “the proposal cited by the State in its report […] is an isolated theory [and not a binding one, and that t]his proposal and the criteria derived from the gathering of a set of cases on the issue of military courts [by the Supreme Court of Justice] in 2012 are not binding, since, in Mexico, it is necessary to reiterate the same criteria in five consecutive sentences for the establishment of a jurisprudential thesis.” 34. Regarding the right to challenge the jurisdiction of the military courts, the representatives expressed that, in relation with the constitutional reform on June 6, 2011, “[…] the law regulating those constitutional provisions, namely, the new amparo law, should have been enacted on October 4, 2011.” Given all of the above, the representatives asked this Court to declare that the fifteenth operative paragraph of the Judgment has not been fulfilled. 35. For its part, the Commission stated that “more [than] two years after the ruling ordering the reform of the aforementioned laws, they ha[ve] not yet been approv[ed] by the Senate. That is, the legislative modifications ordered by the Court in its Judgment have not yet materialized.” Thus, the Commission “remain[ed] waiting for the State to present specific information about whether or not the draft amendment to the Code of Military Justice is currently in legislative proceedings, clarify at which stage of such process it is at, and the likelihood of its [approval]. Similarly, the Commission remain[ed] waiting for the State to forward its observations on the concerns expressed by the representatives regarding the various aspects of its content. Finally, the Commission reiterate[d] that the decisions adopted by the Supreme Court of Justice involve a significant change in the perspective of the highest court as to the incompatibility of the military courts to hear cases of human rights violations.” Considerations of the Court 36. Just as in the case of Radilla Pacheco, and reiterated in the cases of Fernández Ortega and Rosendo Cantú, it was decided in the present Judgment that Article 57 of the Military Criminal Code is incompatible with the American Convention. Consequently, the Court reminded the State that it has an obligation to introduce, within a reasonable period of time, the appropriate legislative reforms in order to make the aforementioned provision compatible with international standards in this regard and with the American Convention, under the terms established in this Judgment. 19 On 19 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, paras. 341 and 342, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 234. 12