4 g) regarding the obligation to provide psychological care and treatment to the victim’s next of kin, steps have been taken to provide them with “preferential and specialized” care. Some next of kin have desisted due to the irregularity of their respective appointments. The State, however, has coordinated new appointments to provide psychological care and treatment to the victim’s next of kin, which will be provided with such frequency as may be determined by qualified professionals. No appointments have been coordinated with two of the next of kin, since one of them is studying in Cuba and the other is prevented from keeping any appointments due to job-related reasons; and h) regarding the obligation to pay the amounts established by the Court for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage: i) such compensation had been granted to the beneficiaries; ii) the bank deposit in the name of minor Indira Isabel HuilcaFlores was made on January 11, 2006; and iii) José Carlos Huilca-Flores, then a minor, became of legal age and, further to his consent, he was directly paid the appropriate amount. 3. The communications submitted by the representatives of the victim and his next of kin (hereinafter “the representatives”) on April 21, 2006 and September 14, 2006, whereby they stated that: a) regarding the obligation to effectively investigate the facts of the instant case: i) the Judgment delivered on March 7, 2006 by the National Criminal Division of the Lima Court of Appeals represented a step forward in the investigation; however, no further progress has been made in the process of identifying, prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators and masterminds of the extrajudicial execution of Pedro Huilca-Tecse; ii) it was necessary for the State to continue to advance the investigations against Alberto Fujimori-Fujimori and the members of the Colina Group; iii) the next of kin of Pedro Huilca-Tecse testified at the proceeding instituted for the crime of terrorism; however, they were not significantly involved in such proceeding given that, pursuant to the criminal laws in force, the State is the party aggrieved by the crime of terrorism, which prevents the next of kin from participating as the aggrieved party; and iv) the publicity given to the judgment of acquittal handed down by the National Criminal Division of the Lima Court of Appeals favoring those prosecuted for terrorism “[wa]s adequate.”