13 had to travel to medical centers, and the monitoring supplied by officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (supra Having seen paragraph 5(g)). However, the representatives reported that some of these services provided to the beneficiaries had been suspended (supra Having seen paragraph 6(g)). Consequently, the Court considers that the State should refer to the said observations of the representatives when reporting on this matter and should also indicate the measures it has taken to ensure that the next of kin are attended adequately in health care establishments or specialized institutions, even when they are not accompanied by officials of the said Ministry; ii) Regarding the psychological treatment, the State reported that, due to the representatives’ request that the treatment be provided by a private institution, it “has decided to hire the professional services of a psychologist with the professional capacity to provide the required treatment” (supra Having seen paragraph 5(g)). The representatives indicated that the State should appoint this medical professional by mutual agreement with the beneficiaries of the reparation and their representatives (supra Having seen paragraph 6(g)). The Court notes that the reparation ordered by the Court consisted in the State providing this treatment through its own specialized health institutions; however, if the parties reach an agreement involving a change in the way this measure is provided, so that it is through private sector institutions or professionals, they should communicate this to the Court. (e) The creation of a web page to trace those who disappeared (seventh operative paragraph of the Judgment of March 1, 2005). When reporting on this matter, the State shall take into account the Court’s indications in Considering paragraph 10(a) of this Order; and (f) The publication, at least once, in the official gazette of Chapter 1, entitled “Introduction of the case,” Chapter III, entitled “Jurisdiction” and Chapter VI, entitled “Proven facts,” as well as the operative paragraphs of the Judgment on merits, reparations, and costs. 12. That the Court will consider the general status of compliance with the Judgment on merits, reparations, and costs of March 1, 2005, when it receives the pertinent information on the aspects of the reparations pending compliance. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, pursuant to the authority to monitor compliance with its decisions conferred by Article 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65, 67 and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, Articles 25(1) and 30 of its Statute, and Article 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, DECLARES: