65 (d) “To continue the Human Rights Defenders Policy, based on current programs, measures and actions as an expression of the guarantee of non-repetition in relation to the protection of the human rights defenders”; (e) “[To provide] psychosocial and medical care in national health establishments to the victims determined by the Court in the judgment delivered in this case”; (f) “Regarding the damage to the life plans and change in the living conditions of Nelly Valle Jaramillo and Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa, […] to offer, following consultation with the victims, a study grant in Colombia for educational opportunities in the sector, profession, or subject that the victims wish to study,” and (g) “To guarantee the safety of Carlos Fernando Jaramillo should he consider returning to Colombia permanently [and] to facilitate the process of return to their places of origin for the victims.” 228. In addition, it “requested the Court to recognize that [the publication of the settlement agreement and the official decision approving the settlement] constituted a measure of satisfaction in this case,” and that the Court consider “the additional measures of reparation contained in the settlement as tangible progress towards integral reparation in administrative jurisdiction.” 229. The Court takes note and recognizes that the said measures seek to repair the damage caused to the victims and their next of kin, to keep alive the memory of the deceased victim, and to avoid a recurrence of facts such as those in this case. The Court also notes that the State has provided that the measures that so require it are adequately disseminated and that specific aspects of the implementation of the measures must first be coordinated between the State and the representatives.163 230. Specifically, the Court notes the undertaking made by the State concerning the establishment of the “Jesús María Valle Jaramillo” grant to support the Human Rights Defenders Unit of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights as an “act to recover the historical memory of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo as a human rights defender.” The Court also takes note of the commitment made concerning the “Human Rights Defenders Policy,” which the State presented as “a way of expressing the guarantee of non-repetition in relation to the protection of human rights defenders.” 231. The Court accepts and orders the measures of satisfaction and guarantees of nonrepetition offered by the State in sections (a), (b), (c.1), (c.2), (e), (f) and (g) of paragraph 227, with the clarifications indicated in paragraphs 232 to 234 and 238 of this judgment, since they constitute a way of providing satisfactory reparation for the consequences of the violations declared in this judgment, and are in keeping with the Court’s case law; in addition, they represent a positive contribution by Colombia to compliance with its obligation to make reparation in accordance with Article 63(1) of the Convention. Consequently, the State must comply with the measures indicated in paragraph 227(c.1), 227(c.2), 227(f) and 227(g) within one year of notification of this judgment, and with the measures indicated in paragraph 227(b) and 227(e) within six months of notification of this judgment, and with the obligation indicated in paragraph 227(a) within a reasonable time. 163 Cf. Case of La Rochela Massacre, supra note 21, para. 280.