indicated that the provision of social services by State cannot be confused with the reparations that the victims of humans rights violation are entitled to, due to the specific damage produced by the violation,18 this includes the expansion and improvements that the State makes to the aforementioned services. Thus, the Court considers that the victims in this case should receive different treatment in relation to the process and procedure that should be followed in order to be treated at public health institutions. Similarly, when providing psychological treatment the circumstances and needs of each person should be considered in order to provide individual and family treatment, as agreed with each party and after an individual assessment.19 22. The Court values the recent progress reported by the State and the representatives regarding the measures taken, or that are set to be taken, that strive to effectively and comprehensively implement this reparation measurefor all beneficiaries, if they so desire. The Court also notes that compliance with this obligation by the State may depend, to a large extent, on the cooperation and information provided by the representatives and beneficiaries. Therefore, it stresses the importance of continuing and advancing coordination between the State and the representatives to finalize compliance with this measure, such that it effectively reaches all beneficiaries. d) Regarding operative paragraph twelve of the Judgment 23. With regard to the obligation to implement training programs and regular courses on human rights for all members of the Paraguayan Armed Forces(operative paragraph twelve of the Judgment), the State reported that under the "Programa Patrón de Enseñanza de Derechos Humanos y Derecho Internacional Humanitario" [Master Program for Education in Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law], adopted in 2002,20 various institutes that make up the Comando de Institutos Militares de Enseñanza del Ejército [Commando of Military Institutes of the Army] (CIMEE in Spanish) have been implementing programs that cover subjects related to human rights and international humanitarian law. These courses are aimed at officers, cadets, noncommissioned officers, aspiring noncommissioned officers and soldiers. The subjects are dealt with "through lectures, talks, conferences, seminars, discussions and assessments," and the use of the core text "ME 33-400 Humanitarian Standards Manual - Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law in the Armed Forces." It noted that the learning material "Soldier's Guide" and "Human Rights ...everyone's commitment" had been distributed. During the private hearing, the State reported that the number of military personnel trained in human rights and international humanitarian law between 2003 until 2010 amounts to 3106 people, at the different levels, the courses are held monthly, and are part of the curriculum of military training centers. Finally, it reported that according to the consensus reached with the representatives, they would attend the headquarters of the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Nation, to verify the different documents, for which it is agreeing the time and date. Considering Clause twenty eight, and Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v.Colombia.Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 9, 2009, Considering Clause thirty. 18 Cf. Case of González et al. ("Cotton Field") v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs.Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 529, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 16, Considering Clause twenty-eight. 19 Cf. Case of 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia.Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Resolution of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 10, 2007, Considering Clause eleven;Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supranote 16, Considering Clause thirty, and Case of Goiburú et al., supranote 16, Considering Clause forty-one. 20 Cf.Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay.Monitoring compliance with Judgment.Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 30, 2008, Considering Clause twenty-five.