-19The State reported that “the Supreme Court of Justice and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have held working meetings because the former already has a genetic testing laboratory.” It also mentioned that “these two institutions have signed a cooperation agreement regarding this situation […].” The Commission and the representatives agreed that there was an absence of specific, concrete measures to comply with this reparation; (d) “Designation of a day dedicated to the children who disappeared during the internal armed conflict for different reasons” (tenth operative paragraph of the judgment of March 1, 2005). The State declared March 29 each year as “Day of Family Reunification of children who were lost during the armed conflict for different reasons.” Bearing in mind the observations of the representatives and the Inter-American Commission, the Court finds that the name of the day should explicitly mention the phenomenon of disappearance; (e) Provision, free of charge, through its specialized health institutions, of the medical and psychological treatment required by the next of kin of the victims, including the medicines they require, taking into consideration the health problems of each one, after making an individual evaluation, and informing the next of kin of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz in which health centers or specialized institutes they will receive the said medical or psychological care, and providing them with the treatment. If Erlinda and Ernestina are found alive, the State shall also provide them with the said medical and psychological treatment; i) ii) The Court appreciates the measures adopted by the State to comply with its obligation to provide the medical care required by the next of kin of Erlinda and Ernestina Serrano Cruz, including medicines. Nevertheless, both the representatives and the Commission observed that, although the State has being complying, it has done so deficiently. Hence, the Court finds that, when reporting on compliance with this reparation, the State should refer to the said observations of the representatives and the Commission; Regarding the psychological treatment, the State reported that the representatives had indicated that the first evaluation had been carried out in a private clinic, but that “no information in this regard had been received from the Asociación [Pro-Búsqueda].” Meanwhile, the representatives indicated that “the State had not adopted any measure or action to initiate the psychological assistance to the Serrano family, although this has been requested in writing on several occasions by the Asociación Pro-Búsqueda […],” and that “[s]ince the State does not have an institution that provides psychological assistance to victims of human rights violations, Pro-Búsqueda recommended the support of a private institution that offers this service. However, the Association, as a representative of the victims did not undertake at any time to evaluate the need for them to receive psychological assistance, as the State indicates in its report.” The Court finds that the parties should hold conversations to reach an agreement on the best way to implement this obligation; (f) The creation of web page to trace those who disappeared (seventh operative paragraph of the judgment of March 1, 2005). When reporting on this