C) Comprehensive measures of reparation: restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition C.1. Restitution 254. The representatives asked the Court to ensure that the members of family A who wish to return to their village can do so in conditions of safety. Neither the Commission nor the State referred to this specific point. 255. In this case, the Court established that on December 31, 2004 C.A., B.A. and their children L.A. and N.A., as well as E.A. and her children J.A. and K.A., left their places of residence due to a lack of protection from the State (supra paras. 168 and 169). It also confirmed that Mrs. B.A. returned to Santa Lucía, but did not return to her home (supra para. 171). However, the Court does not have information regarding the current places of residence of Mrs. B.A. or of the other individuals mentioned. Mrs. C.A. died on June 4, 2010. 256. In order to contribute to obtain redress for displaced victims, the Court considers that the State must guarantee adequate conditions of safety so that B.A., E.A., L.A., N.A., J.A. and K.A., can return to their places of residence, if appropriate and if they so wish, without this representing an additional expense for the beneficiaries of this measure. The Court grants these individuals a period of one year, as of the notification of this Judgment, to inform the State of their intention to return, if that is the case. If, within this period, the victims express their wish to return to their places of residence, a period of two years will be granted so that the victims and the State can agree on the pertinent arrangements for the State to comply with this measure of reparation, such as paying the removal expenses of the family members and their belongings. If, on the contrary, the victims do not express their wish to return within a period of one year, the Court will consider that they have relinquished this measure of reparation. C.2. Rehabilitation 257. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to “[e]nsure appropriate medical and psychological treatment for the direct and indirect victims […] through a private insurance scheme.” The State pointed out that the relatives of Mr. A.A. had not expressed their wish to receive psychological support. It also held that “there is no evidence that the deterioration in the health [of the relatives] is due to this case […or that] it has deteriorated in general.” Similarly, it affirmed that it has a public health system and that “in no way would it be possible to compensate victims through private entities.” Furthermore, it pointed out that “the State has already been ordered compensate this family for the ‘Diario Militar’ case, in which they also claimed to have suffered psychological damage.” The Commission did not refer to this point. 258. In this regard, the Court has evidence confirming that the members of family A suffered consequences as a result of the impunity surrounding A.A.’s death, 367 and that E.A., K.A. and J.A. suffered as a result of having to leave their community and, in the case of B.A., L.A. and N.A., 368 as a consequence of their forced displacement to Mexico. Therefore, the Court considers that the State must provide, through its specialized health institutions, and free of charge, immediate, adequate and effective psychological and psychiatric treatment required by the victims, with their prior informed consent and for the time necessary, including the free provision of medicines. The respective treatment must be provided, insofar as possible, at the health centers nearest to their places of residence. 369 The victims have a period of six months, counted from the notification of this Judgment, to request said treatment from the State. 367 Cf. Psychosocial Evaluation of H.M. (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 1412 to 1428). Regarding the State’s objection that the “psychosocial report [of Mrs. H.M.] was not carried out with the sufficient depth required for an expert report of this nature, since interviews with 22 persons lasting between 1 and 2 hours are not sufficient to determine the psychosocial damage that the family of [A.A.] may have suffered,” the Court confirms that the State did not indicate the reasons why this methodology was inadequate, nor did it provide evidence to support this statement; therefore it considers these arguments to be unfounded. 368 Cf. Psychosocial Evaluation of H.M. (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 1425 and 1426). 369 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 51, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, supra, paras. 425 and 426. 74