Page 1

References 3,4,5,6,7,8 are out of date...

***Done, i already updated the references

Page 2

2.1 at the end c_h^2 has become \chi^2

***This is about one of the parameters from the HAHM model, i cited the reference of the model...

Page 3

Update CMS value to correspond PRD publication

***Done in the table, i also updated the values for ATLAS

Why is there a 20GeV lower bound on the low mass region??
There is no reason given for the 5GeV 'cushin' between the
experimental cuts and the defined regions.

***Because of the cuts applied from this analysis in the experiments for
example in ATLAS they cut on the first pair (50<m12<106) and second pair 
(X<m34, X lineal interpolation)

Since no combination of CMS and ATLAS results is performed in 
this paper why is the CMS results not used to give a lower mass
range??

*** The idea of presenting this study is to motivate both experiments (ATLAS
and CMS) to search for this Z' using this HAHM model...

The upper bound of 80GeV has no motivation, I assume one wants to stay
away from resonances ZZ production, but why are higher masses for Z'
no considered?

*** The branching fraction using the model HAHM is becoming so small for
Z' masses higher than 60GeV...

Page 4

"and as not detected if MZ'>35GeV" this should be a '<' relation

***Corrected

This sentence:
"Low-mass Z' case:(20GeV<MZ'<35GeV) This is the region where the MZ'
is below 20 GeV" is not logically consistent

***Corrected  page 4 section 4.2 Results

Page 5

"We can see from Figure 2 that a large region is excluded at 95% C.L.: the 
region for MZ' below 63GeV and the s2h close to 0/1"
This is more appropiate description of the allowed region, than the excluded 
region (which lies in the middle of the s2h parameter space), as supported by 
the text

*** Corrected