254. As in other cases, the Court deems it necessary to order a measure of reparation that provides adequate care for the physical and mental ailments suffered by the victims, addressing their specific needs. Therefore, having confirmed the violations and damages suffered by the victims in the present case, the Court orders the State to provide them, freely and immediately, with appropriate and effective medical and psychological care for up to four years. In particular, the psychological treatment must be provided by State institutions and personnel specialized in treating victims of acts such as those that occurred in the instant case. When providing said treatment, the specific circumstances and needs of each victim must also be take into account, so that they are offered family and individual treatment, as agreed upon with each one, after an individual evaluation. The treatments must include the provision of medicines and, where appropriate, transportation or other expenses that are directly related and are strictly necessary. 255. In particular, and where possible, the treatment must be provided at the health centers nearest to the victims’ places of residence. The victims who request this measure of reparation have a period of six months from notification of this Judgment to advise the State, either in person or through their legal representatives, of their wish to receive medical or psychological care. 27. Based on said paragraph, the Court considers it clear that the State was ordered to provide said reparation immediately. What the Court established was a six-month period for the victims to advise the State of their wish to receive care, as of notification of the Judgment. Therefore, the representatives’ request does not constitute a request for an interpretation of the terms of the Judgment, but rather seeks to change what was ordered therein, inasmuch as they requested that it should be understood that the measure could only be executed once the girls M., V. and R reach legal age and complete their education. Likewise, in the event that a dispute should arise between the parties on the manner in which the State should implement this measure, the Court will, as it has on previous occasions,7 assess the proper implementation of the reparation measures during the stage of monitoring compliance with Judgment, and will, in due course, assess any information and observations that the parties may submit in this regard during that stage. 28. Therefore, the Court concludes that this request for interpretation of judgment submitted by the representatives is inadmissible, because it does not constitute a request for an interpretation of the meaning and scope of the Judgment 8, and does not fulfill the terms of Articles 67 of the American Convention and 31(3) and 68(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. C. Payment of fees and expenses incurred by the expert witness María Alicia Espinoza 29. The representatives requested that the Court “add to the costs, the payment of fees and travel expenses incurred by the expert witness María Alicia Espinoza […], who attended […] the […] Court” in the proceeding that took place in Santiago de Chile. 30. The State argued that “the representatives seek to use the request for interpretation as a means to add evidence regarding the expenses incurred by the expert witness, even though the procedural stage for doing so was not used due to negligence attributable to the representatives themselves.” It added that the representatives “seek to attach [the vouchers for expenses] extemporaneously.” 31. The Commission stated that it had “no observations to make” on this point. 7 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 199, para. 26. 8 Cf. inter alia, Case Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits, para. 16; and Case Abril Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 18. 7