30. The representatives indicated that they had “reached an agreement on the text of the plaque” and that they hope to decide, together with the State, how it should best be placed in the Palace of Justice of the Department of Antioquia. 31. The Commission assessed positively the State's willingness to reach a consensus and the willingness of the representatives to agree on the text, preparation, and installation of the plaque in memory of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo in the Palace of Justice of the Department of Antioquia. 32. The Court welcomes the willingness of the State and the representatives to implement this measure of reparation and highlights their readiness to achieve consensus. In this regard, the Court takes note of the agreements reached between the State and the representatives regarding the content of the text for the plaque. Thus, it urges the State to prepare the plaque and proceed to place it in the Palace of Justice of the Department of Antioquia as soon as possible, with the agreement and participation of the victims. Consequently, the Court considers that implementation of the seventeenth operative paragraph of the judgment has started and awaits information on its completion. f) Regarding the obligation to provide immediately and free of charge, through its specialized health care institutions, any psychological and psychiatric care required by the victims (eighteenth operative paragraph of the judgment) 33. The Court received information from the State, the representatives of the victims, and the Inter-American Commission on the implementation of this measure of reparation during the private hearing on monitoring compliance in the present case (supra having seen paragraph 12). In this regard, the Court reiterates that this measure of reparation will be examined within the framework of the joint monitoring of compliance in eight Colombian cases (supra having seen paragraph 3). Consequently, the Court will rule in due course on all the information received, including the information aired during the hearing in this case. g) Regarding the obligation to award Nelly Valle Jaramillo and Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa an educational grant to study or train for a profession (nineteenth operative paragraph of the judgment) 34. The State expressed its willingness “to comply with this measure of reparation and to remedy, to some degree, the suffering and needs that María Nelly Valle Jaramillo and Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa have faced.” It stressed that, in the interpretation judgment of July 7, 2009, the Court had indicated “that the State’s compliance with this obligation entail[ed], in part, that the beneficiaries take certain actions aimed at exercising their right [in relation to] this reparation measure.” The State also indicated that the representatives had proposed, in a communication of August 19, 2010, “that the scholarships that [the Court] ordered for Nelly Valle Jaramillo and Carlos Fernando [Jaramillo Correa] can be used and enjoyed by their children, who are currently at the stage of receiving university training.” Therefore, they proposed “the one-time payment of a subsidy, the amount of which would be agreed upon, and which could be based on the average cost of tuition for 10 semesters of an undergraduate program.” In response to the representatives’ proposal, the State offered “to pay for a specialization course or a master’s degree in a Colombian university for one of Carlos Fernando Jaramillo's children and for one of Nelly Valle Jaramillo's children,” specifying that they themselves would have to carry out “the admissions procedures for the program they choose.” Subsequently, on February 18, 11