5 15. The representatives appreciated the mental health care training policies incorporated into the actions of the program to reform of the area of psychiatry. Nevertheless, they stated that these actions were insufficient and did not prevent the repetition of human rights violations in institutions providing attention to people with mental disorders; particularly, in private institutions attached to the SUS. In addition, they indicated that the State: (i) had repeated information that was prior to the judgment, which is not the purpose of the obligation established in the eighth operative paragraph, and (ii) had not provided detailed information on the training courses relating to the purpose of the said operative paragraph. In this regard, they stated that it was essential to know the profession, place of work, and function performed by those who had received the training. They also argued that much of the training mentioned by the State referred to employees working in the extra-hospital network, in the Psycho-social Attention Centers (CAPS) and in other services available in the country. However, they indicated that, according to data from the Health Ministry, there are still 35,426 posts in psychiatric hospitals attached to the SUS. 16. The Inter-American Commission observed that, despite “its acknowledgement regarding the State policy concerning the public policies and programs required to ensure respect for the human rights of those with mental disabilities,” the State has still not forwarded the information it was asked to provide in the twentieth considering paragraph of the Order of the Court of September 21, 2009. Specifically, the Commission reiterated that it “considers it necessary to have sufficient information on the education and training programs for the medical, psychiatric, psychological, nursing, nursing auxiliary and all other persons connected with mental health care, the progress made in its implementation, and its relationship with the reparations ordered in the judgment.” 17. The Court considered it appropriate to recall that this stage of monitoring compliance concerns the State’s obligation, following notification of the judgment, to continue implementing an education and training program for all those person connect to mental health care; in particular, on the principles that should govern the treatment of those who suffer from mental disabilities according to the relevant international standards and those established in the judgment.6 18. In its Orders on monitoring compliance of May 2, 2008, and September 21, 2009, the Court asked the State that, of all the existing training activities in the area of mental health care, it restrict itself to providing information on those specific training initiatives whose content related to the matter determined in the judgment, and on the implications of the said initiatives for the beneficiary personnel.7 Furthermore, the Court also asked that the information should refer, in particular, to the training of personnel working in the area of mental health care in institutions of the same nature as the one in which the violation occurred in this case; namely, in psychiatric hospitals.8 19. The Inter-American Court takes note of the different general initiatives relating to mental health care that the State has implemented, and also of the more specific 6 Cf. Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2009, eighteenth considering paragraph. 7 Cf. Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 2, 2008, twentieth considering paragraph, and Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil, supra note 6, twentieth considering paragraph. 8 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 7, nineteenth considering paragraph, and Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 6, twentieth considering paragraph.