8. The State noted in its report of February 2, 2011 that “it [was] very willing to coordinate the date of the public act of acknowledgment of international responsibility and apology with the representatives of the victims.” 9. By way of its communication of February 15, 2011, pursuant to operative paragraph two of the Order (supra Having Seen 4), and following the instructions of the President of the Court, the Secretariat requested, yet again, that the State indicate any concrete actions it had taken and would take in order to carry out the act of acknowledgment of international responsibility. Moreover, the State was to indicate the tentative dates for this act. 10. In its communication of March 15, 2011, the State noted that “owing to the appointment of new officials in the Central Electoral Board, in the next few days [it would send to the Court] the relevant information.” Given the State’s failure to respond, a nonextendable period was afforded with a deadline of April 23, 2011. Nevertheless, the State has not provided the requested information to date. 11. The Court notes that, pursuant to operative paragraph six of the Judgment, the public act of acknowledgment of international responsibility should have been carried out within a period of six months as of the legal notice of the Judgment. More than five years have passed since that period expired, without fulfillment of this measure. Due to the foregoing, the Court considers it indispensable for the State to carry out all of the steps necessary for the public act to be carried out as soon as possible. In monitoring compliance with this obligation, the Court reiterates once again that the State must present a clear, precise, and detailed report on: a) the measures that have been taken and that will be taken to fulfill this obligation, and b) the tentative dates, agreed upon by the parties, on which the act will be held. b) Adoption, at the domestic level, of the measures necessary to regulate the procedures and requirements for acquiring Dominican nationality based on late registration of birth (operative paragraph eight of the Judgment) 12. By way of a report of February 3, 2011, the State indicated that, “legislation adopted in response to the Judgment [is attached], regarding operative paragraph eight.” Relating to this, the State forwarded the following documents, which are grouped according to their nature: 1) Legislation adopted prior to the Judgment: Manual or Guidelines of November 17, 2003, for the application of Order No.07/2003; Order No. 07/2003 of November 17, 2003, on Late Registration of Persons over 16 years of age; Order No. 5-99 of August 4, 1999; Dossier Circulations of the Central Electoral Board of 2004, and Dossier Circulations of the Plenary of the Central Electoral Board. 2) Legislation adopted subsequent to the Judgment and previously forwarded to the Court: Order No. 45/2008 of October 3, 2008, on Late Registration of Birth of Persons over 60 years of age, whose identification card states only the surname corresponding to the mother; Operational Guidelines of the Central Office of Late Registrations of Birth of October 22, 2008; Order No. 02/07 of April 18, 2007, for the entry into force of the Birth Registration Book for Children of Non-resident Alien Mothers in the Dominican Republic, and Dossier Circulations of the Central Electoral Board of 2005, 2007, and 2008. 3) Legislation adopted subsequent to the Judgment, that had not been forwarded to the Court: Preliminary Circulation Guidelines No. 44/2008 of November 19, 2008, on Late Registration of Birth of Persons over 60 years of age, whose identification only states the surname corresponding to the mother, and Order No. 08/2007 of November 4