10 custody of the State are to be preserved and strengthened as a way of guaranteeing that events such as the ones described in the instant case will not happen again. 26. That taking into consideration what has been informed and after assessing the steps informed by the State in order to comply with this obligation, the Court deems that the information submitted does not specifically refer to the control mechanisms implemented at provisional arrest centers, as ordered by the Court in paragraph 112 of the Judgment (supra Considering clause 24). In this regard, it considers that the efforts made in order to ensure a strict control in the treatment of detainees at provisional arrest centers must include a medical and psychological check-up, procedures to periodically evaluate the psychological condition of the officials tasked with providing treatment to detained persons at provisional arrest centers and the access to those arrest centers of officials from the appropriate control or protection bodies, matters regarding which the State has not submitted sufficient information which allows assessing compliance with this measure. 27. That the Court has verified the partial compliance with this reparation measure (supra Considering clause 24). Notwithstanding, it is necessary that the State inform the Court on the adoption of all necessary measures to strengthen the control mechanisms existing at State provisional arrest centers, in accordance with the measures ordered in the Judgment delivered in the instant case and in the above-mentioned Considering clause. * * * 28. That the State, together with the report of March 18, 2009, forwarded the agreement reached at the meeting with the victims’ representatives in the instant case. In such agreement, the parties, among other things, bound themselves: a) “to carry out a joint activity to raise the awareness of judges on the decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice, the Superior Council of the Judicature [Consejo Superior de la Judicatura] and the State Council [Consejo de Estado] regarding the protection of the victims of human rights violations, [in order to] prevent unfavorable decisions from lower judges who are not cognizant of the case law of [the Inter-American Court],” and b) “to agree on a text on the facts and judgment rendered in the instant case and adopt all necessary steps to publicize the latter by different means (web pages of different institutions and of the victims’ representatives), so that it be widely disseminated,” and they agreed that c) “the victims’ representatives will contact Wilson Gutiérrez-Soler’s next of kin and try to raise their awareness so that they participate in the relevant process of diagnosis and subsequent treatment.” 29. The representatives, in their brief of April 16, 2009, pointed out that they “ratif[ied] the above-mentioned agreements.” 30. That the Commission pointed out that “it had taken cognizance that the parties have agreed on measures aimed at guaranteeing the dissemination and knowledge of the Judgment […] and expects that the State submit up-to-date information regarding the progress in adopting such measures in its next report.”