5. The State noted in regard to the medical care offered to Ms. Atala, that “the […] Director of Eastern Metropolitan Health Services, sent a letter dated January 28, 2013, to [Ms.] Atala [to…] coordinate a first session with a doctor.” Notwithstanding, in a meeting held on March 14, 2013, between Ms. Atala, her representatives, the Minister of Justice, and the Subsecretary of Justice, the victim expressed that “she would not make use of these medical services, because she has been with the same private doctor for several years and she considered it would be to her detriment to relive episodes she has already discussed with her doctor.” After hearing her reasoning, the State informed Ms. Atala that “nevertheless those services would be at her disposition if she so desired to make use of them.” 6. In regard to the girls M. and R., the State reported that on March 8, 2013, the representative of the girls reported that the girls wanted to make use of the benefits that were being offered to them. In regard to M., the State reported that “[t]he first session took place on May 29 of that year, and it was established that she would be treated by a psychiatrist […]. On Tuesday June 4, by way of electronic mail, she was informed that “she had been given another appointment. In regard to girl R., the State noted that “in a meeting held with [Ms.] Atala’s representatives in the month of March, taking into account that the minor still lives with her father […] and that he has been reluctant to collaborate with the Court’s order, it was decided by all to not insist on treatment in order to avoid conflict with her father, which could adversely affect the daily life of the minor.” 7. In regard to girl V., the State reported that it carried out “an interview protocol that ensured the free opinion of the girl regarding whether she wanted to be considered an injured party.” Once the protocol was established, the State added that it resumed contact with the father of the minor, who requested “that all the documents on the interview be sent to him in order to analyze them and respond to the petition.” The State expressed that on March 5, 2013, it once again made contact with the father, but so far, this effort has been unsuccessful. 8. The representatives stated, regarding the medical care of Ms. Atala, that she had requested the State to pay for her consultations with the private psychiatrist that she has seen for a long time. As such, currently, the representatives await “a timely and favorable response in regard to whether the State of Chile can assume the economic costs of such care as a measure of reparation.” 9. The representatives reported that “the State has not been able to interview girl V. The steps taken by State agents to seek the cooperation of the father of the girl [ ... ] have not had positive results.” In regard to the girl R., the representatives stated that, as with the girl V., the father of the two girls “is reluctant and has not provided any collaboration that would allow the girls to have access” to medical care. Therefore, the representatives requested that “this Court confirm that the four-year period established in the [J]udgment for each of the girls start to run from the time they have effective access to the ordered measures. If there is no access to these health benefits before they reach a legal age, which may occur if there is no collaboration by the legal custodian, V. and R. may have access to the services once they reach adulthood, time at which V. may decide to access those services without a prior interview with the State.” 10. In regard to M., the representatives stated that after the first session with the medical psychiatrist “the subsequent sessions have had some irregularities, such as changing the attending psychiatrist, confirming appointments without informing ahead of time, long waits and very short sessions, requests to resubmit information that had previously been requested, among other difficulties. These difficulties need to be solved so 4