8 28. The Court takes notes of the different initiatives related to health care taken by the State and repeats that "without detriment to the measures the State shall adopt within the framework of the general health system, it is necessary [for the State] to provide the victims with preferential treatment”.10 In this regard, the Tribunal has held that the social services that the State provides to individuals cannot be confused with the reparations to which the victims of human rights violations have a right, based on the specific damage arising from the violation11. Therefore, in the first place, the Court may only assess compliance with this measure of reparation based on the information related to the activities that were carried out after the Judgment. In the second place, the Tribunal considers that the victims must be provided with preferential treatment in relation to the formalities and procedures they have to follow in order to be treated in public hospitals. 29. In addition, the Tribunal repeats what was pointed out in paragraph 256 of its Judgment, to the effect that "[t]he medical treatment for their physical health must be provided by personnel and institutions specializing in the ailments suffered by these persons to ensure that the most adequate and effective care is provided.” Moreover, “[t]he psychological and psychiatric treatment must be provided by personnel and institutions specialized in treating victims of acts such as those that occurred in this case” and “must take into account the ailments of each of the victims following individual evaluation.” In this regard, the Tribunal takes note of what was informed by the State regarding the request presented by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Minister of Health and to the authorities of Santo Tomas Hospital, in order to coordinate the treatment of Mrs. Graciela De León at the Regional Health center in Penonomé. 30. Furthermore and in view of the arguments presented by the representatives and Mrs. Patria Portugal within the framework of the private hearing (supra Having Seen clause 6), this Tribunal also recalls that in its Judgment, it emphasized that the medical as well as the psychological care must be provided according to the requirements and consent of the beneficiaries. The psychological treatment provided must take into account the particular circumstances and needs of each of the next of kin, so that they can be provided with collective, family or individual treatment, as agreed with each of them and following individual assessment12. To that effect, it is important for state authorities to continue counting on the cooperation and consent of the beneficiaries. 31. Based on the foregoing, the Tribunal considers that it needs organized, detailed, complete and updated information regarding the measures adopted by the State related to the compliance with this aspect and implemented after the Judgment delivered in favor of Graciela De León, Patria Portugal and Franklin Portugal. Moreover, the Court requires further details in relation to the information presented by the State itself as to the feasibility of what the Pan American Health Organization indicated, in the sense that “the people, who went through violent situations in different ways, [could be] treated within the framework of health system […] mental health services [of Panama].” * 10 Case of 19 Tradesmen V. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 8, 2009, considering clause thirty-four; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre V. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 9, 2009, considering clause thirty; Case of the Mapiripán Massacre V. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 8, 2009; Considering clause fifty- four. 11 See Case of González et al (“Cotton Field”) V. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Legal Costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 16, 2009. Series C N° 205, para. 529 12 Case of the 19 Tradesmen V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Legal Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C Nº. 109, para. 278; Case of Goiburú et al V. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of November 19, 2009, considering clause forty-one; and Case of the 19 Tradesmen V. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 10, 2007, Considering Clause eleven.