14 with the reparation measure would be separated from the Government’s initiative to launch criteria of a general public policy in that matter. However, the representatives stated that the agreements and conclusions of the negotiation meetings were not implemented and that this was seen in the lack of compliance with the reparation measure. At the hearing they stated that it was important to guarantee that there is compatibility between the medical and the psychosocial attention. In their final observations, they indicated that even though there had been great progress with regard to the lack of understanding with the Ministry of Social Protection, “there were still disagreements and lack of coordination with the UNDP that affected the selection and summons processes of the organizations that would be in charge of performing the diagnosis.” In this sense, many of the victims were not diagnosed and some were assisted psychologically, but not medically. They expressed that there was still concern regarding the lack of continuity of the process of attention of the victims and that there not be continuance to the attention offered by the organizations that participated in the diagnosis stage. They also pointed out that after that audience was held, the victims had not had any additional contact with the people who performed the diagnosis. 28. That the Commission observed that even though the State referred to the agreement celebrated with the UNDP, the text refers to attention to the general population, which would be suggesting that “the State is trying to comply with that important obligation stated in the Judgment through a general plan of assistance to those affected by the internal armed conflict, which based on its design may not correspond to the reality and needs of the specific beneficiaries of this reparation.” Additionally, it stated that these rehabilitation measures are of an immediate and ineludible compliance given the nature of the damages suffered by the next of kin of the victims and their permanent physical and psychological consequences. It observed that in its last report the State did not provide more information and that there is a delay in the phase of the diagnosis of the beneficiaries, without detriment to which it is imperious that a treatment be executed and that there be the necessary logistic aspects. 29. That the Court values the first actions underway for the execution of this measure, as well as the decision to include this matter in the celebration of the agreement mentioned by the State for the comprehensive attention of the victims of the armed conflict from a psychosocial perspective. The Tribunal values the efforts made by the State upon creating an agreement between the Ministry of Social Protection and the United Nations Development Program; the psychosocial nature of the measures that are being adopted and the investment and procedure followed in the evaluation and treatment system. Additionally, this Tribunal observes with satisfaction that the State adopted an integral vision for the implementation of this measure, which includes the different cases in which this Court has issued judgments and ordered this reparation measure. 30. That at the same time, the Court observes that the adequate treatment of the victims was an obligation the State should have complied with immediately, reason for which it is not considered positive, that the diagnosis of the next of kin in order to decide their treatment has taken more than three years. Since the State did not provide more information after the hearing, the Court does not know if the diagnosis stage has been finalized, nor if it started, without greater delay, the second stage of psychosocial treatment. It is necessary that the remaining measures be adopted in order to implement the medical attention program and include in the care plans the victims that have not yet been evaluated. On the other hand, without detriment of the