intention of receiving the scholarship for their technical or university studies, as well as with regard to the career that they decide to follow at that level. C. Measure of rehabilitation 280. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to provide the highest quality medical and psychological treatment, completely free of charge and lifelong, to Manuela’s mother and father, in the medical center of their choice. 281. The State indicated its willingness to “provide health care and psychological treatment to the victims determined by the Court, based on an initial comprehensive evaluation to determine their individual needs, and to be provided through the public health system, with primary care in the health centers nearest to their place of residence.” 282. The Court has verified the serious impact that the facts of this case had on the physical integrity of Manuela’s parents (supra para. 263). Consequently, it considers it appropriate that the State provide, free of charge and immediately, through specialized health institutions, the adequate and effective medical, psychological and/or psychiatric treatment required by Manuela’s parents, including the free provision of medicines, following their informed consent and for as long as necessary. In addition, the treatments should be provided, insofar as possible, in the centers chosen by the beneficiaries. If there are no health centers nearby, the State must cover the costs of transportation and meals. The victims have 18 months from notification of this judgment to require the State to provide this treatment. 443 D. Guarantees of non-repetition 283. Among the measures of non-repetition, the Court will order the State to amend the law. Compliance with the measures ordered herein cannot be obstructed by use of the principle of legal reservation that undermines women’s rights. Therefore, the obligation to amend the law may be executed directly by the State’s Executive Branch.444 D.1 Regulation of medical professional secrecy and its exceptions, and adaptation of the medical protocols and guidelines for attending to obstetric emergencies 284. The Commission asked the Court to order the State “to ensure the legal certainty of professional medical secrecy by adequate regulation resulting from the due weighting of the rights and interests concerned, and to establish a protocol to ensure protection of those rights and interests by medical staff in cases involving obstetric emergencies or abortion, that meets international standards and that establishes the grounds for exceptions in detail.” 285. The representatives repeated the Commission’s request, adding that the protocol should provide details of “the procedure for [revealing the medical secret] and a detailed list of the authorities with competence to request and to authorize this.” 286. The State did not comment on these requests but, together with its final written arguments, presented several clinical guidelines and also the guidelines of the Ministry of Health relating to obstetric care.445 Cf. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 253, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 114. 443 Mutatis mutandis, Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 26, 2016, para. 135. 444 Cf. Ministry of Health of El Salvador. Clinical guidelines Gynecology and Obstetrics, February 2012 (evidence file, folios 5561 to 5812); Ministry of Health of El Salvador. Technical guidelines for obstetric procedures and surgery, 445 78