competence in this type of case and who, owing to their functions are the first persons called on to attend victims of torture (seventeenth operative paragraph of the Judgment) 30. The State advised that the cases of torture would be channeled through the corresponding authorities, clarifying with regard to the Tourism Police responsible for the surveillance, security and orientation of both nationals and foreigners in tourist areas, that they received training on how visitors should be treated and that “most of the time, they only respond to cases related to tourists who have been victims of crime, without any record of acts of torture.” In addition, it referred to the signature of “Agreements on interinstitutional arrangements” signed by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of the Interior and Justice, “in order to take measures designed to ensure respect for human rights, as well as to improve the living conditions and health of those deprived of liberty.” 31. The representatives observed that the State had never provided elements that would allow it to be understood how the information submitted is related to compliance with the State’s obligation to implement training and education programs for State officials. In this regard, they considered that, although some of the attachments presented by the State revealed that some official documents mention the existence of training programs for prison system personnel, the information was so concise that “it did not permit establishing whether it referred to the measures ordered by the […] Court.” 32. The Commission indicated that the State had not presented any information concerning training programs on the specific issue ordered by the Court and, therefore, it awaited this information. 33. The Court noted that the State has submitted two inter-institutional agreement dated January 24, 2006, and August 25, 2009, signed by the Ministry of the Interior and Justice and the Ministry of Health, which establish agreements to provide health services to persons deprived of liberty, but contain no reference to training programs relating to the obligation to open investigations ex officio whenever there is a report or a well-founded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed under its jurisdiction, for members of the Public Prosecution Service, the Judiciary, the National Police, and personnel from the health sector with competence in this type of case and who, based on their functions, are the first to attend victims of torture. In addition, the Court underlines that these agreements were signed before the delivery of the Judgment (supra having seen paragraph 1), so that they do not form part of the measures taken by the State to comply with the reparation ordered in this aspect of the Judgment. It is also pertinent to note that the information provided by the State concerning the training provided to the Tourism Police does not include relevant aspects relating to compliance with this measure of reparation. 34. Consequently, the Court finds it necessary that the State present complete, detailed and recent information on the measures that have been taken after the delivery of the Court’s Judgment to comply with this operative paragraph, as well as a copy of the respective documentation. g) Obligation to pay the amounts established as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and for reimbursement of costs and expenses (eighteenth operative paragraph of the Judgment) 35. The State advised that it had delivered, in a single payment, the amounts established in the Judgment as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and for reimbursement of costs and expenses, as well as the accrued interest for the delay in 11