Radilla Martínez, if they requested this, following a physical and psychological evaluation.32 Furthermore, it urged the State “based on its acknowledgement of international responsibility in this case, […] to consider granting, in good faith, adequate reparation to the other members of Rosendo Radilla Pacheco’s family, […] without them having to take legal action […].”33 48. In this regard, the Court observes that the State offered psychological care to those declared victims in the Judgment and to other members of Rosendo Radilla Pacheco’s family, through an institution specialized in attending victims of crime, pursuant to the agreement reached with the representatives on May 23, 201234 (supra considering paragraphs 44 and 45). The Court appreciates the initial agreement reached by the parties and, particularly, the undertaking made by the State, in good faith, to provide psychological and medical care and attention through the Procuraduría Social de Atención a las Víctimas de Delitos (PROVÍCTIMA), not only to those declared victims in the Judgment, but also to other next of kin who request this within the framework of this agreement.35 Nevertheless, of those declared victims in the Judgment, only Tita Radilla Martínez “accepted” this attention, because the representatives did not request the implementation of this measure of reparation in favor of Rosendo Radilla Martínez under the said agreement, and Andrea Radilla Martínez is deceased. In addition, the information provided by the State36 and the representatives reveals that, subsequently, Rita Martínez refused to receive the required treatment owing to her concerns about the aptness of the professionals of the said institution (PROVÍCTIMA) to provide psychological attention to the next of kin of a person forcibly disappeared. Consequently, the Court decides that the State must forward the Court, together with its next report on compliance with the Judgment (infra operative paragraph 3), the necessary documentation to prove the capacity of the said professionals to attend this type of victim. In addition, the Court asks the representatives to advise whether Rosendo Radilla Martínez has asked that the State provide him with psychological and/or psychiatric attention. G. Obligation to pay the amounts established in the Judgment, as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and to reimburse costs and expenses, as applicable, within one year of notification of the Judgment (seventeenth operative paragraph of the Judgment)                                                              32 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 358. 33 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 328. 34 Cf. Agreement dated May 23, 2012, signed by the Unit for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights of the Secretariat of the Interior and PROVÍCTIMA (file on monitoring compliance, tome IV, folios 2182 and 2183). The Court notes that, in the note of PROVÍCTIMA of June 11, 2012, addressed to the Unit for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights of the Deputy Secretariat for Legal Affairs and Human Rights the State indicated that “the psychological care ordered will continue to be provided until a psychological report is issued determining that it is not necessary for them to continue receiving [the said] care […].” Cf. Annex 9 to the State’s brief of April 5, 2013 (file on monitoring compliance, tome V, folio 3373). 35 The documentation provided by the State includes two notes from PROVÍCTIMA addressed to the Unit for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights of the Deputy Secretariat for Legal Affairs and Human Rights, dated February 28 and June 11, 2013, advising that psychological care had been provided to some of Mr. Radilla Pacheco’s next of kin who were not declared victims in the Judgment. Cf. Annex 9 to the State’s brief of April 5, 2013 (file on monitoring compliance, tome V, folio 3366). 36 Cf. Annex 9 to the State’s brief of April 5, 2013 (file on monitoring compliance, tome V, folio 3366). 17