6 information provided by the State in its latest report. Nevertheless, the State has not forwarded the requested information which would allow the Court to evaluate how “the principles, which should regulate the treatment of those who suffer from mental disabilities according to the relevant international standards and those established in the […] judgment,” have been included in the program of courses and other training activities on mental health care that have been implemented. Furthermore, even though Brazil mentioned, in general, that different specialization courses in mental health care had been offered that had benefited more than 800 professionals, the State did not specify the content or when the said courses where given; it did not detail the number of advanced and refresher courses offered following the judgment, or the content or the number of professionals who had benefited from them; in addition, it did not specify how many of them work in psychiatric institution with characteristics similar to those of the Guararapes Rest Home (Casa de Reposo). 20. Consequently, in order to evaluate how these or other activities are adapted to the measure of reparation ordered in the judgment, the Court reiterates that, in its next report, the State must refer only and specifically to: (i) the training activities, of different levels, implemented following the judgment, and addressed at personnel connected to mental health care in institutions of the same nature as the Guararapes Rest Home (supra considering paragraph 18), whose the content refers to the principles that should regulate the treatment of those who suffer from mental disabilities, in accordance with the relevant international standards and those established in the […] judgment,”9 and (ii) the number of participants in these activities. THEREFORE, THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of its authority to monitor compliance with its judgments and in accordance with Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65 and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, 25(1) and 30 of its Statute, and 69 of its Rules of Procedure,10 DECLARES THAT: 1. As indicated in the twelfth and twentieth considering paragraphs of this Order, the Court will keep open the procedure of monitoring compliance with the points that establish the obligation of the State to: (a) Guarantee, within a reasonable time, that the domestic proceedings to investigate and, if appropriate, punish those responsible for the facts of this case are effective (sixth operative paragraph of the judgment), and (b) Continue implementing an education and training program for the medical, psychiatric, psychological, nursing, and nursing auxiliary personnel and for all those connected with providing mental health care, in particular, with regard to the principles that should govern the treatment of individuals with mental disabilities, according to the international standards in this regard and 9 Cf. Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, eighth operative paragraph. 10 The Court’s Rules of Procedure approved at its eighty-fifth regular session held from November 16 to 28, 2009.