20. The representative Jemio Mendoza indicated that in the judgment the Court “assumes a broad position in relation to the rehabilitation measures ordered […] that must be carried out by the State, which is why it has not established a strict time limit for each of the victims to request the medical and psychological care they require.” In relation to Ms. Patricia Catalina Gallardo Ardúz, he stated that “the medical and psychological care, medication and physiotherapy she requires were made known to the Court in the brief presented on May 3, 2023, and were also previously indicated to the State at the meeting held on April 13, 2023.” Lastly, he argued that the judgment is clear that “the victims’ need for treatment must be deduced from the claims made by the representatives, from the violations recognized by the Court […] in its judgment and from the physical and psychological assessments carried out previously on the victims,” and that all of these elements “complement each other, [and] must be understood and considered by the State when providing the medical, psychological and/or psychiatric treatment requested and required by each of the victims.” 21. The Commission pointed out that, “based on the conclusions set forth by the Court in its judgment, the health care provided must take into consideration the specific ailments of the victims that resulted from the facts of the case “by means of a prior physical and psychological’ assessment.” Thus, it emphasized that “the judgment clearly states the obligation to provide health care” and that “this matter does not correspond to the interpretation […], but rather to compliance with the judgment.” B.2. Considerations of the Court 22. Regarding the rehabilitation measure, the Court recalls that paragraph 299 of the judgment stated the following: The Court considers that the State must provide, immediately, free medical and psychological and/or psychiatric care that is adequate and effective through its specialized public health institutions to all the victims who request this. To this end, it must take into consideration the specific ailments of the victims that result from the facts of this case through a prior physical and psychological appraisal. The respective treatments must be provided in Bolivia for as long as necessary and include the provision, free of charge, of any medicines that may be required. In the case of the victims who are in prison, the State must guarantee access to the necessary treatments in establishments outside the prison, guaranteeing the necessary transportation between the prison and the health center. 8 23. Regarding the lack of a deadline for victims to submit their requests for medical and psychological and/or psychiatric care, it should be noted that, according to paragraph 31 of the judgment, in the instant case several of the victims had not been contacted at the time the judgment was issued and notified. This being the case, the Court considers that the State’s request cannot be subject to an interpretation in the abstract 9 and it will be at the stage of monitoring compliance with judgment that the Court will make the pertinent considerations based on the respective reports submitted by the State and the observations 8 Cf. Case of Valencia Campos et al. v. Bolivia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 18, 2022. Series C No. 469, para. 337. 9 Mutatis mutandis. Case of the Workers of Hacienda Brasil Verde v. Brazil. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 22, 2017. Series C No. 337, paras. 44 to 45, and Case of the Maya Kaqchikel Indigenous Peoples of Sumpango et al. v. Guatemala. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 27, 2022. Series C No. 457, para. 30. 6