6 the “La Exposición” Park be carried out. This was submitted to the State for its consideration and the next of kin were awaiting a reply on the matter; g) regarding the obligation to provide psychological care and treatment to the victim’s next of kin, different obstacles have hindered the actual provision of said psychological care. The Ministry of Health arranged for said psychological care to be provided to the victim’s next of kin at the Honorio Delgado-Hideyo Noguchi Hospital; Martha Flores-Gutiérrez, José Carlos Huilca-Flores and Julio Cesar Escobar-Flores did receive care at said institution but, because of the lengthy period of time in between appointments, they abandoned the treatment. Minor Indira Isabel HuilcaFlores and Flor de María Huilca-Gutiérrez did not keep their appointments. Because the infrequency of the appointments was an obstacle to obtaining adequate psychological care, the victim’s next of kin expressed their intention to hold discussions with the State on how to expedite the psychological treatment at the hospital selected by the State or, in the alternative, to have such care provided by a different institution, such as the Centro de Atención Psicosocial [Psycho-Social Care Center]. Even though compliance did not begin until after the expiration of the time limit prescribed in the Judgment and in spite of the fact that the frequency of the appointments was not adequate, they did recognize that the State had taken measures aimed at providing the treatment ordered by the Court. However, since such psychological care was not provided with the expected periodicity, they considered that the State had partially complied with this measure of reparation; and h) regarding payment of the monetary compensation ordered by the Tribunal as pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, since all the beneficiaries received the appropriate compensation amount within the first quarter of fiscal 2006, and given that the State had complied with its obligation to set up a trust fund for the benefit of minor Indira Isabel Huilca-Flores, they considered “this measure had been complied with.” As to José Carlos HuilcaFlores, setting a trust fund was not actually necessary as he turned of legal age in 2005 and, accordingly, payment was made to him directly. 4. The brief submitted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) on May 4, 2006, whereby it noted that: a) regarding the obligation to effectively investigate the facts of the instant, case: i) the judgment of acquittal delivered by the National Criminal Division on March 7, 2006 represented a significant step forward in the State’s compliance with its obligations; and ii) there were causes for concern over the procedural activity carried out in such proceeding, as action therein was apparently not as intense as could be expected for over one year of efforts aimed at securing justice. b) regarding the obligation to organize a public act acknowledging its responsibility, the State had complied with this measure;