said monument.” Therefore, the State indicated that “it is working on locating the owner of the property in order to arrange the respective authorization.” 37. The representatives stated that, more than a year after notification of the judgment, “the explanations provided by the State to justify its delay are […] unacceptable,” and it is “incomprehensible that the State claims that it requires more than a year to identify the owner of the property in question, especially when most of the victims, and the residents of the neighboring areas, know who it is.” They added that “the State itself had to obtain permission from this person in order to exhume the remains that were in a well on this property; hence it cannot claim that it does not know […] his identity.” They indicated that they believe that “the State’s arguments reveal not only poor coordination between the State institutions, but also the reluctance to comply with this measure of reparation.” 38. The Commission noted that the State had “indicated that it would forward information on this matter “opportunely.” In this regard, the Commission considered that “under this procedure to monitor judgment, the presentation by the State of detailed and updated information is essential in order to define the progress made or compliance with the obligations ordered by the Court.” It added that the time granted by the Court had already expired and that “the information available does not permit identifying the specific actions that the State has taken to construct the monument, or the proposals made to overcome the problems that have arisen.” 39. Based on the information provided by the parties, the Court notes that, to date, the State has not taken any steps to build the monument in the place occupied by the Dos Erres community in order to comply with the provisions of paragraph 265 of the judgment, and specifically its fifteenth operative paragraph. The Court considers that the identification of the owners of the land should not represent a problem. Therefore, the Court reiterates to the State its obligation to increase its efforts and to take all the necessary steps, as soon as possible, to make progress in complying with this measure of reparation. Consequently, this Court considers it essential that the State present updated and detailed information on the steps taken to comply with this measure, and their results. H) Obligation to provide psychological and medical treatment to the victims (sixteenth operative paragraph of the judgment) 40. In its report of December 21, 2010, the State indicated that “the Ministry of Public Health and Social Welfare is the State institution in charge of providing medical services and psychological care.” In addition, it indicated that, on “May 12, 2010, it had requested the legal representatives in the case to present information on the age, identification number, and exact addresses of the beneficiaries” so as to locate them, because many of the victims no longer live in the department of Petén. It added that “the information requested has not been forwarded by the legal representatives,” and that on “December 13 and 14, 2010, they sent some identification documents; however, the State does not have the home address of the beneficiaries.” In this regard, the representatives indicated that “it was a matter of concern 41. that the State authorities were arguing that they are unable to obtain the personal information of the victims more than one year after notification of the judgment, and attempting to hold one of the representative organizations responsible for its noncompliance.” The representatives added that they are “very willing to collaborate and help” and that, consequently, “since the first half of 2010, FAMDEGUA has made lists 12