21. In a brief of October 20, 2011, (supra having seen paragraph 2), regarding the obligation to erect a monument, the State indicated that it was coordinating this measure of reparation with Jaime Watt Kawas, son of Mrs. Kawas Fernández. Regarding the awarenessraising campaign, it advised that, “currently, the Justice and Human Rights Ministry is coordinating its implementation with other public institutions, as well as with nongovernmental organizations working in the area of the environment.” The State indicated recently that “the two-year time frame for complying with these two measures of reparation [was] about to expire,” and therefore asked the Court for “a six-month extension as of that date to comply with the [eleventh and fourteenth] operative paragraphs of the judgment […].” 22. The representatives indicated that they had “contacted Jaime Watt, who stated that the State had not approached him recently to reach agreement on the construction of the monument.” According to the representatives, Mr. Watt indicated that “approximately two years ago, when they [sic] presented a proposal for the design of the monument, the State asked them [sic] also to find a piece of land to erect it on, to which the family objected, considering that it was incumbent on the State to comply with its international obligations.” Since then, the representatives had apparently not “received information regarding the construction of the monument in memory of Jeannette Kawas Fernández.” 23. Regarding “the placing of signs in the Jeannette Kawas Fernández national park,” the representatives indicated that “according to information provided to them by the PROSALANTE Association – to which Mrs. Kawas Fernández belonged – to date, only 6 of the 44 signs that the State had to place in this park had been installed.” Lastly, the representatives indicated that they were not “aware of the actions undertaken by the State to coordinate implementation of the awareness-raising campaign.” 24. The Commission “t[ook] note of the time frame that the Court had granted the State to report on compliance” with the twelfth and fourteenth operative paragraphs of the judgment (supra having seen paragraphs 1, 2 and 5 and infra considering paragraph 25) and considered it “necessary that, in this report, the State refer” to the observations of the representatives concerning these aspects (supra considering paragraphs 22 and 23). 25. The Secretariat’s note of October 26, 2011 (supra having seen paragraph 5), confirmed that the time frame granted for compliance with the said twelfth and fourteenth operative paragraphs of the judgment had expired on May 6, 2011. In view of the State’s request for an “extension” (supra having seen paragraphs 2 and 21), it was advised that it had six months to present information on compliance with both aspects; in other words, until April 26, 2012. The Court clarifies that this is not an extension, because the judgment established a time frame of two years to comply with both measures of reparation. Consequently, the Court awaits this information, and considers that the twelfth and fourteenth operative paragraphs of the judgment (supra having seen paragraph 1) remain pending compliance. F. Obligation to provide psychological and/or psychiatric treatment to Blanca Fernández, Selsa Damaris Watt Kawas, Jaime Alejandro Watt Kawas, Jacobo Roberto Kawas Fernández, Jorge Jesús Kawas Fernández and Carmen Marilena Kawas Fernández (thirteenth operative paragraph of the judgment) 26. Neither the State nor the representatives referred to this measure of reparation. For its part, the Commission “consider[ed] that the Court should require the State to submit detailed and updated information on […] the actions taken to provide health care services.” 6