satisfies the requirements of the said judgment, given that the reform law was enacted in strict compliance with the international instruments which the Court ordered the Respondent State to comply with. 251. The Respondent State also notes that to execute the Court’s judgement, requested September an interpretation of the judgment which was 2017. The Respondent State then opted only delivered it first on 28 for a consensus-based solution to change the impugned law of the Court’s judgment of 18 November 2016. It claims that the organisation of such an inclusive political dialogue with different political parties and CSOs to establish an electoral body that meets relevant international standards inevitably took time. 252. The Respondent State therefore argues that there is ample justification for its inability to submit a report on the execution of the judgment within one year of its notification of the decision and that such inability cannot constitute any violation whatsoever of its international commitments. hE 253. Article 30 of the Protocol stipulates that: “The States parties to the present Protocol undertake to comply with the judgment in any case to which they are parties within the time stipulated by the Court and to guarantee its execution.” 254. The Court recalls that in its judgment in APDH v Céte d'Ivoire (merits), it ordered the Respondent State to: amend Law No 2014-335 of 18 June 2014 on the Independent Electoral Commission to make it compliant with the aforementioned instruments to which it is a Party; and submit to it a report on the implementation of this decision within a reasonable time which, in any case, should not exceed one year from the date of publication of this Judgment;?5 25 Actions pour la Protection des Droits de Homme 668, § 153. (APDH) v. Céte d'Ivoire (merits) (2016) 1 AfCLR 55