must privately confirm the girl V’s free opinion regarding whether she wishes to be considered as an injured party. 18. Regarding the rehabilitation measure of medical or psychological care, the Court ordered that: “255. […] the victims who request this measure of reparation, or their legal representatives, have a period of six months as from notification of this Judgment to advise the State of their intention to receive medical or psychological care. 19. As to the compensation, the Court ordered the following: “299. […] the Court deems it appropriate to establish, in equity, the sum of $20,000 USD (twenty thousand dollars of the United States of America) for Ms. Atala and $10,000 USD (ten thousand dollars of the United States of America) for each of the girls M., V., and R. as compensation for non-pecuniary damages. […] 313. As to the compensation ordered in favor of the girls M., V. and R., the State shall deposit the amounts in a solvent Chilean financial institution in United States dollars. The investments shall be made within the term of one year, under the most favorable financial terms allowed by law and banking practice, while the beneficiaries are minors. Said amounts may be withdrawn by the girls when they come of age, or before if this is in the girls’ best interest, as the case may be, as established by a competent judicial authority. If, after 10 years counted from the time when each of the girls comes of age, the corresponding indemnities have not been claimed, these amounts shall be returned to the State with the accrued interest. As regards the girl V., for the purposes of reparations, the terms set forth in paragraph 71 of this Judgment shall apply. 20. Bearing in mind the provisions made in the above paragraphs, the Court considers it is clear that, for the purposes of reparations, it ordered the competent national authority for children to privately confirm the girl V’s free opinion regarding whether she wishes to be considered as an injured party. In this regard, it should be noted that although the Judgment did not establish a specific procedure for obtaining her opinion, it did state that this should be done privately. Furthermore, the Judgment provided specific guidelines on the considerations to be taken into account in order to ensure a child’s right to be heard. In particular, the Judgment described the way in which the proceeding was conducted by this Court with the girls M. and R. in paragraphs 68 and 69 thereof 6, and in the section entitled 6 These paragraphs established that: in its Decision, the Court stated that children exercise their rights progressively, as they develop a greater degree of independence, and for this reason during early childhood their relatives act on their behalf. Clearly, the level of physical and intellectual development, experience and information varies widely among children. Therefore, when the hearing was held in accordance with the aforementioned Decision […] it was taken into account that the three girls were then aged 12, 13 and 17 years of age and that, therefore, there might be differences in their views and in the level of personal independence for each of the girls to exercise her rights. In the instant case, the Court heard two of the girls on February 8, 2012. (supra para. 13). During the hearing, the staff members of the Secretariat were accompanied by psychiatrist María Alicia Espinoza 6. Prior to commencing the proceeding, the delegation of the Secretariat of the Court held a prior meeting with the psychiatrist, consisting of an exchange of ideas, in order to ensure that the information provided was accessible and appropriate for the girls. Taking into account the international standards on a child’s right to be heard […], the girls M. and R. were, in the first place, informed jointly by the staff of the Secretariat of their right to be heard, the effects or consequences that their opinions might have in the dispute in this case, the position and arguments of the parties in the present case, and they were also asked whether they wished to continue participating in the proceeding. Subsequently, instead of conducting a unilateral examination, a conversation was held with each girl separately, in order to provide the girls with an appropriate environment of trust. During the proceeding neither of the parents and neither of the parties were present. Furthermore, the proceeding conducted with the girls was private, due to the request, both by the Commission and by the representatives in this case, that the identity of the girls remain confidential (supra note 3), and to the need to protect the girls’ best interest and their right to privacy. In addition, the girls expressly requested that everything said by them during the meeting be kept in the 5