6 acceptable to start with the diagnosis all over again. They expressed that several of the doctors who have given treatment to the victims were part of the social security system and that the victims are not beneficiaries, for which reason they did not contribute to the social security system. In view of the foregoing, they proposed that an agreement be entered into between the social security system and the public health care system so that the victims may receive a high quality treatment. 17. The Commission indicated that it “note[d] the willingness the State had expressed […] to provide the medical care the victims require, […] the steps taken up to the moment for the purpose of providing the pertaining psychological care to the beneficiaries, as well as the limitations mentioned in the report regarding the actual operation of such aspect of this reparation measure”. In the course of the public hearing it stated that it expected the situation regarding provision of the health services to be cleared soon, for the victims already had a diagnosis and had been undergoing treatment for the last fifteen years. 18. It may be inferred from the statements by the parties that relations between the victims and the State are getting closer, in order to coordinate the provision of medical services and in such sense the Tribunal sets much store by the willingness the State has expressed to comply with the orders in the Judgment. However, this Tribunal notes that under paragraph 201 of the Judgment, such reparation measure was to be implemented as from the moment notice thereof was served, while more than three years have gone by since and compliance therewith is still pending. In such sense, the Court considers the State must adopt forthwith all such measures as may be necessary and effective in order to provide Mr. José Mauricio Garcia Prieto Hirlemann and Mrs. Gloria Giralt de Garcia Prieto such adequate medical, psychiatric or psychological treatment, free of charge, as may be determined considering their health needs, in agreement with the victims, including the medication prescribed. In order to monitor compliance with such obligation, it is necessary for the State to furnish detailed and updated information in such regard. 19. As to operative paragraphs number eight and number nine in the Judgment wherein the obligation the State has to pay compensation for non-pecuniary damages to Mr. José Mauricio Garcia Prieto Hirlemann and to Mrs. Gloria Giralt de Garcia Prieto, as well to pay the latter for costs and expenses (supra Having Seen Clause Number 1) is set forth, the State informed it had effected such payments, something which was confirmed by the representatives and by the Commission. In such respect, the Commission “set […] much store by the State having paid the victims the sums of money the Court ordered in the [J]udgment”. Therefore, this Tribunal considers that the State has complied with operative paragraphs number eight and number nine in the Judgment. * * * 20. This Tribunal sets much store by the full compliance with operative paragraphs number eight and number nine in the Judgment on preliminary objections, the merits, reparations and costs delivered by the Court on November 20, 2007, as well as by the compliance in part with operative paragraph number five in the aforementioned Judgment, with reference to the publication of the pertinent parts of the Judgment in the Official Gazette, something which implies progress by the State in carrying out and implementing the judgments of the Court.