CONSIDERING THAT: 1. One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Mexico has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since March 24, 1981, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on December 16, 1998. Furthermore, it ratified the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons on April 9, 2002. 3. Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” To this end, the State must ensure implementation at the domestic level of the Court’s decisions in its judgments.1 4. The Court has recently received from the parties a vast amount of information on the organization by the State of a public act of acknowledgement of responsibility during which a plaque was unveiled recalling the forced disappearance of Rosendo Radilla Pacheco. Based on the information submitted and the claims made, principally by the State and the representatives, in this order the Court will rule on this aspect. Obligation to hold a public act of acknowledgement of responsibility with regard to the facts of the case and in order to restore the memory of Rosendo Radilla Pacheco, and to place a plaque recalling the facts of his forced disappearance in Atoyac de Álvarez, Guerrero (fourteenth operative paragraph of the judgment) A. Arguments of the State 5. The State advised that, in compliance with the judgment, on November 17, 2011, it had organized a public act of acknowledgement of responsibility in Atoyac de Álvarez, Guerrero, in the presence of the acting Minister of the Interior, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, together with the following officials of the state of Guerrero: the Governor, the heads of the Legislature and the Judiciary, and the President of the Guerrero Human Rights Commission. In addition, during this act, a plaque was unveiled recalling the forced disappearance of Mr. Radilla Pacheco. The State forwarded various documents, videos and audios on the coordination and the logistics for the organization of this act, as well as on its implementation. Regarding this point, in the report it presented on August 29, 2011, the State indicated that, “as an act of good faith and full commitment to the promotion and respect for human rights, the Federal Executive, through the [then] Deputy Minister of Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Interior Ministry […] delivered a message of acknowledgement of responsibility with regard to what happened in the case of Rosendo Radilla Pacheco[; which] was televised during the hour of national transmissions on Sunday, August 14, [2011].” The State forwarded a copy of the video that was disseminated. 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia) v. Venezuela. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2011, third considering paragraph, and Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 10, 2011, third and fourth considering paragraphs. 2