I'm going to answer the first part of your question.
After evaluating the recommendation on the 10th of February universal periodic review done in Geneva, attended by a representative from the State of Mexico and civil society representatives--the universal review was headed by the Secretary of the Interior--the Mexican state had an interactive dialogue with other members of a council in which 54 delegations participated. The member states of the council formulated 91 recommendations to the Government of Mexico. One of them dealt specifically with the use of military jurisdiction. I've already referred to it, and I don't want to repeat the same things.
After reviewing the recommendations, the Mexican delegation committed to adopt the necessary measures to comply with 83 of the 91 recommendations put forward, including the ones dealing with legislative harmonization--in other words, implement legislative measures to harmonize everything that is contained in international treaties that deals with non-discrimination, violence against women, judicial reform, and so on. But they reserved on another eight recommendations, which had to do with these issues of military tribunals, and these dealt mainly with ensuring that civil courts trump military courts. This has to do with item number three.
Insofar as the recommendations that were put out, I think the universal periodic review was a very important opportunity for your civil society organizations to ensure that visibility was given to the work we do and advocate for progress within wide-ranging issues involving human rights in Mexico. We regret that these eight recommendations were not accepted, because they're highly relevant within the context in which we are living right now.
What was your second question?