4 a) The State had “ignored the agreements and understandings on the way in which the required treatment should be provided […] based on the assessments […] that had been made,” taking into account that the obligation to make reparation implies “ensuring a treatment that is able to act on the harm,” and not merely providing “access to affiliation” in the health care system, which, far from being a reparation, constitutes a “State obligation”; b) The State had not indicated how the reparation mechanism possesses “the integral dimensions required by the measure ordered” and maintained that the treatment must be implemented with a “psychosocial approach,” which it explained “substantially and operationally” throughout its proposal; c) The State had disregarded “the consent of and coordination with the beneficiaries of the measure” and “the results of the initial assessment,” and this had resulted in “a process of re-victimization that annuls the usefulness of the measure of reparation,” and d) The State must provide attention that is: (i) preferential; (ii) free of charge; (iii) complete, and (iv) integral. II. The coordination process during 2011 6. The State indicated that, on December 9, 2010, the parties had agreed “to establish a committee in which, together, they [would] prepare a timetable of work following the signature of a memorandum of understanding […] with the central objective of making progress towards complying with the measure.” On that occasion, the victims were advised that the above-mentioned contract with CAPRECOM was no longer valid. 7. On March 15, 2011, a “memorandum of understanding [was signed by the State and the representatives], by the representatives of the victims, the Director of the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Head of the International Relations and Cooperation Office of the Ministry of Social Protection” (supra having seen paragraph 5). Among other matters, the memorandum affirms that: a) The measure of reparation would be composed of two stages: (i) assessment and diagnosis, and (ii) treatment; b) “The implementation of the treatment stage would be defined by the parties […] based on the framework of the General Social Security System for Health Care,” in keeping with the criteria established by the Court, namely: “(i) priority; (ii) preferential; (iii) integral; (iv) cost-free; (v) prior informed consent; (vi) through specialized institutions; (vii) with the provisions of any medication required, and (viii) for the time necessary”; c) Until the treatment stage is implemented, urgent cases would be attended as a priority; d) A “coordination committee” would be established in order to reach agreement on “the program to attend and treat the victims [of the eight cases], based on the proposal presented by the representatives.” This committee would be composed of representatives of the State,4 the victims,5 and the 4 A representative of the Ministry of Social Protection, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and of the National Health Superintendence will act on behalf of the State. 5 A victim from each case will be a member of the coordination committee.