ordered has been complied with fully. Therefore, it considers it pertinent to reiterate to the State10 that it is essential that it present, as soon as possible, a detailed updated report on the specific measures it has taken to comply with the sixth operative paragraph of the Judgment. When presenting the pertinent information, the State is requested to provide details of compliance with article 15 of the Law on the Rights and Protection of the Patient, in relation to paragraph 163 of the Judgment – to which its sixth operative paragraph relates – and which indicates the “obligation of the health services to have copies of the [said] law available to users and to display the text of the rights of the patient in places that are visible to the public.” In addition, it required the State to specify how the public policies to which it referred (supra considering paragraph 12) are related to compliance with the measure ordered by the Court in the said operative paragraph. C) To implement, within a reasonable time, a program to educate and train agents of justice and health care professionals on the laws that Ecuador has enacted with regard to patients’ rights, and on the punishment for failing to comply with them, in the terms of paragraph 164 of the Judgment (seventh operative paragraph of the Judgment). 16. Regarding the seventh operative paragraph, the State advised that the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights has a training “module” on the right to health with a human rights approach in relation to the rights of patients, for agents of justice and health care professionals, with “extensive content” and covering different topics such as “structural reforms and social policy with regard to health”; its purpose is “to provide judges with a comprehensive perspective of the human right to health and […] of the law with regard to patients.” However, the “module” requires a “broader approach” in order to be considered “effective training material.” The State advised that it was designing a “strategy” for this training and that different State entities are holding “coordination meetings” in order to reach collaboration agreements to provide the training on patients’ rights. Lastly, it assured that as soon as “the functions [of] the new units created within the Ministry of Public Health have been adjusted, it would inform [this] Court of [the details] of the training programs.” 17. In her observations, Mrs. Cornejo stated that “Ecuadorians who live in the capital” have heard nothing about “the education and training program for agents of justice and health care professionals”; hence, the State has not complied with this measure. 18. For its part, the Commission indicated that the State had not provided updated information on the implementation and monitoring” of the “modules” it mentioned. The Commission also underlined that, even before the restructuring mentioned by the State, the latter had “not adopted any specific measure and that, in addition, the reforms […] would delay the implementation of specific measures even further. Therefore, it concluded that, five years after the Judgment, “the measure of reparation relating to the training of agents of justice and health care professionals is at an embryonic stage. 19. The Court observes the State’s failure to follow-up on certain measures that, according to the information provided by the State itself, had already been started and would be pertinent to comply with the measure of reparation ordered. Thus, the Court notes 10 Cf. Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 7, fourteenth considering paragraph. This indicates that the State must specify, inter alia, “(a) program and timetable for disseminating patients’ rights and, if applicable, the distribution of the leaflet that has been prepared; (b) which media have been used to carry out this dissemination; (c) to which persons or groups was the dissemination addressed, and (d) which health care units have received the leaflet.” 6