budgetary transfer to the Ministry of Health and Sports to guarantee payment of the provision of health care services to the persons identified in the Judgment.” It also advised that, “by Decision […] R.H.D. No. 017/11 of June 1, 2011, [the Caja Petrolera de Salud] decided to affiliate the Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña families, […] establishing [that] the respective administrative procedures for voluntary insurance should be implemented, the costs of which would be covered by the Ministry of Health and Sports as established in the said legal norm.” 29. Furthermore, the State advised that, on February 8, 2011, the Ministry of Health and Sports had informed the victims that, as of February 14, 2011, they could “go to any of the regional offices of the Caja Petrolera de Salud throughout the country to carry out the respective affiliation, [because these] administrative procedures required the beneficiaries’ presence and signature.” According to the State, only Tito Ibsen Castro went to the National Office and to the Santa Cruz Departmental Administration Office; however he was unable to affiliate himself because he did not present the documents required to complete this procedure. Therefore, the State affirmed that it was for the beneficiaries to go to the said offices in order to affiliate to the Caja Petrolera de Salud, because Bolivia had “made all the necessary efforts to comply with [this] measure” of reparation. 30. The representatives indicated that the State “had not […] made any type of physical or psychological assessment of the victims.” Also, in their brief of March 13, 2013, they advised that the victims had gone to the offices of the Caja Petrolera de Salud on several occasions to carry out the “respective affiliation, [but they had been told] that the Caja was still unable to provide [them] with medical care even though the Ministry of Health had recently [provided] part of the financial resources for regular medical services.” Therefore, according to the representatives, “the health insurance has not been implemented and, in particular, the victims are not receiving health care services.” 31. The Commission indicated that the measures taken by the State constituted a step forward in the implementation of this measure of reparation, but, to date, it did not have information showing that, in the practice, the beneficiaries of this measure were receiving the required medical and psychological attention. Consequently, it indicated that it was “waiting for information from the representatives concerning the affiliation procedures.” 32. The Court appreciates the efforts made by Bolivia to comply with this aspect of the Judgment. Nevertheless, the information forwarded by the representatives25 reveals that Bolivia has still not carried out a physical and psychological assessment of those declared victims in the Judgment, or provided them with the free medical and psychological or psychiatric attention they require, immediately, appropriately and effectively, as ordered by the Court. And this is despite the fact that, according to the documentation provided by the State itself, at least Raquel Ibsen Castro and Martha Castro Mendoza are already affiliated to the Caja Petrolera de Salud.26 In this regard, the Court observes that a dispute exists                                                              25 Cf. Medical prescriptions. Reports of the Caja Petrolera and videos (file on monitoring compliance, tome I, folios 570 to 573, 595 to 601). 26 The Court observes that the information presented by the State includes reports signed on November 6, 2012, by the Head of the Transparency Unit of the Ministry of Health and Sports and by the Executive Director General of the Caja Petrolera de Salud, indicating that Raquel Ibsen Castro and Martha Castro Mendoza “are duly affiliated,” so that “they both […] have valid health care coverage.” In addition, regarding Rebeca Ibsen, the Executive Director General of the Caja Petrolera de Salud indicated that she had not gone to any of the offices of this entity “to request the respective affiliation” and, lastly, with regard to Tito Ibsen Castro, he indicated that the latter had gone to the National Office and the Santa Cruz Departmental Administration Office, but had “not presented the [necessary] requirements for his affiliation.” Cf. Annex 4 to the State’s report of February 25, 2013 (file on monitoring compliance, tome II, folios 1122 to 1147). 11