2. That, as indicated in considering paragraph 71 of the […] Order, the State has complied partially with its obligation to pay the persons indicated in Annexes I, II and III of the Judgment the compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage (twenty-third and twenty-fourth operative paragraphs of the Judgment).3 3. The private hearing on monitoring compliance held at the seat of the Court on May 19, 2010, in relation to the measure of reparation concerning medical, psychiatric and psychological care, as well as to similar measures of reparation ordered in other cases involving Colombia.4 4. The Order of the Court of May 25, 2010, in which it decided to authorize the State to hand over a percentage of the compensation established in favor of the three children of María Oliva Calle, victims who are minors, specifically for the purchase of a house.5 5. The private hearing on monitoring compliance with the Judgment6 held on February 25, 2011, during the Court’s ninetieth regular session. The Order of the Court of February 28, 2011, in which it declared that:7 6. 1. As indicated in considering paragraphs 9 and 19 of the […] Order, the State had complied with the obligation: a) To publish in the Official Gazette, once, the chapter on proven facts of the Judgment, without the corresponding footnotes, and the operative paragraphs (twenty-second operative paragraph of the Judgment), and b) To pay the persons indicated in Annexes I, II and III of the Judgment the compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage (twenty-third and twenty-fourth operative paragraphs of the Judgment), in the terms of considering paragraphs 12 to 19 of [the] Order. 2. As indicated in considering paragraph 8 of [the] Order, by jointly monitoring compliance with the measure of reparation on medical and psychological care ordered in eight Colombian cases, the Court will monitor the State’s obligation to provide the appropriate treatment required by the next of kin of the victims who were executed (sixteenth operative paragraph of the Judgment). 3. As indicated in considering paragraph 23 to 26 of [the] Order, the following obligations remain pending compliance: a) To take the necessary measures to provide justice in the case (fifteenth operative paragraph of the Judgment); b) To provide, free of charge, the appropriate treatment required by the next of kin of the victims executed in the case (sixteenth operative paragraph of the Judgment);                                                              3 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Order on monitoring compliance. July 7, 2009. Second declarative paragraph. http://corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/ituango_07_07_09.pdf 4 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109; Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 12, 2005. Series C No. 132; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140; Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163; Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192. 5 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 25, 2010, twelfth considering paragraph. 6 Convened by an Order of the President of the Court de December 22, 2010. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/ituango_22_12_10.pdf 7 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, of February 28, 2011. http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/ituango_28_02_11.pdf 2