4 reported that “on March 2, 2009, […] it gave [Mr.] Castañeda-Gutman [a] check for USD 7,000.00 (seven thousand dollars of the United States of America).” 13. That the representatives “acknowledge[d] compliance, on the deadline day, of payment of the amount established in the [eight] operative [paragraph] of the Judgment.” 14. That the Commission “t[ook] note of the information submitted by the State on the payment said to have been made to the victim in the instant case on March 2, 2009.” 15. That, based on the information submitted by the parties, the Tribunal finds that the State has complied with its obligation to pay the amount owing to the victim on account of costs and expenses within a period of six months. * * * 16. That the State's report did not address the State’s obligation to complete the adaptation of its domestic law to the Convention, as ordered in the sixth operative paragraph of the Judgment. 17. That the representatives noted that Mexico “has not shown any signs of its willingness to fully comply with its obligations under the [sixth] operative [paragraph] and paragraphs 227 to 231 of the Judgment, which deal with the adaptation of the domestic law concerning the implementation of the effective, useful remedy guaranteeing the right to judicial protection for those citizens who, not being nominated by a political party, claim that their fundamental right to be voted for has been violated.” They stated that, even though several sections of the Law on the System of Mechanisms for Contesting Electoral Matters were amended on July 1, 2008, the substantive part which the Court found to be in violation of the Convention remained unchanged. 18. That the Commission argued that the State “did not address the actions taken with a view to complying with its obligation to complete the adaptation of its domestic law to the Convention,” and it thus awaited further information. 19. That the Inter-American Court would like to recall that, in the sixth operative paragraph of the Judgment, it ordered the State to complete the adaptation of its domestic law to the Convention within a reasonable period of time. That, on the other hand, in the ninth operative paragraph of the Judgment, it ordered the State to submit its first report on compliance with the measures of reparation within one year from the date of notification of said Judgment. That, even though the State has already reported on the implementation of two measures of reparation, the Court has noted that the deadline set for the State to submit its report on the entire set of measures provided for in the Judgment has not yet expired. Accordingly, the Court will examine and rule on compliance with the measure of reparation ordered in the sixth operative paragraph of the Judgment once the deadline set expires and once it has received the State report originally provided for by the Tribunal. * * *