provides the required psychological care.31 In addition, the State indicated that, “in addition to the psychological care ordered by the Court […], all the members of the family of Rosendo Radilla Pacheco were being offered comprehensive medical care.” In this regard, it indicated that, on March 21, 2013, a meeting had been held in order “to hear the requirements of the [victims] with regard to the psychological and medical care [provided], based on which, several measures are currently being planned.” 45. The representatives indicated that they had reached agreement with the State that psychological care would be provided to the victims through PROVÍCTIMA, once a month, in the place whether they reside. In addition, they stated that, in an act of good faith, Mexico had accepted to provide these services to all the other daughters of Rosendo Radilla Pacheco who had not been declared victims en the Judgment, as well as to other family members. Thus, the victims and their representatives considered that the State’s willingness was a positive factor. Nevertheless, in their observations of May 2, 2013, the representatives indicated that this “care was offered without any type of planning or agreement with the victims […] about the profile of the professional who would be responsible for providing the psychological care. Owing to this lack of planning, towards the end of 2012, the psychological care was interrupted, because […] the victims had no confidence in it.” “In this regard, to ensure that the psychological care provided to the Radilla Martínez family complies with basic criteria that are appropriate for the problem [of forced disappearance of persons], both the victims and the representatives ask[ed] that the State certify before the victims and before [the Inter-American Court], the experience and level of specialization in this area of the professionals appointed to treat the victims […].” They also asked the Court to require the State to present “the work plan that w[ould] be followed for this care (initial comprehensive diagnosis, therapeutic plan, informed consent, prognosis based on the diagnosis and the work plan, general follow-up, […] etc.),” to ensure that “the care provided to the victims meets the highest professional standards and that its continuity is guaranteed.” In this way, they indicated that, “currently, [they were] awaiting the offer of psychological care to be presented by the State, [which would] be consulted with the victims in order to obtain their consent to this care.” Lastly, they asked the Court not to find that this measure of reparation had been complied with, “until an agreement is reached on the type of psychological care that will be provided to the victims and until these rehabilitation services have been provided for a reasonable time […].” 46. The Commission “appreciate[d] the meeting that had been held between the parties and recalled that, over the last year, disagreements had arisen regarding the type of services that the beneficiaries receive, the specialty of the institutions, and the failure to differentiate the service from that provided to the rest of the population.” In addition, it stated that “the implementation of the health measures should be differentiated, individualized, preferential, comprehensive, and provided by specialized institutions and personnel.” Thus, it indicated that it “awaited information on the agreements reached at the meeting of March 2013, as well as on the steps taken to comply with them.” 47. The Court recalls that, in the Judgment, the State was ordered to provide free psychological and/or psychiatric treatment immediately, adequately and effectively, through its specialized public health institutions to Tita, Andrea and Rosendo, all with the surnames                                                              31 The State advised that the following had received psychological care: Agustina, María del Pilar, Judith, Ana María, María del Carmen, Evelina, Romana and Victoria, all with the surnames Radilla Martínez. Furthermore, it indicated that it had not been possible to provide care to Tita Radilla Martínez, because she had repeatedly refused to receive it. Cf. Annex 9 to the State’s brief of April 5, 2013 (file on monitoring compliance, tome V, folio 3366). 16