7 14. That it is necessary that the State continue informing on the progress of the proceedings started in connection with the facts described in the instant case, as well as on the second appeal for review to be filed in order to investigate and prosecute as soon as possible all those allegedly responsible for said facts. * * * 15. That regarding the obligation to provide, free of charge, psychological and psychiatric treatment at the health-care facilities the State may indicate (second operative paragraph of the Judgment rendered on September 12, 2005), in its Order of January 31, 2008 the Court determined that “as long as some of the beneficiaries are living abroad, the State will not be able to provide psychological […] treatment under the terms ordered in connection therewith.” 16. That regarding the victims who reside in Colombia, the State pointed out that this obligation had not been complied with as said beneficiaries had expressed their wish to consult Wilson Gutiérrez-Soler before undergoing diagnosis procedures, evaluation and treatment. In this regard, the State expressed that it was ready to provide diagnosis, evaluation and treatment “[…] the moment the relatives so require and at the time th[ey] dee[m] convenient.” 17. That the representatives acknowledged the flexibility and willingness of the State to comply with the above obligation, despite the delays that took place and the difficulties encountered, and bound themselves to cooperate in order to generate greater confidence in the victims so that they may receive the above-mentioned treatment. Furthermore, they expressed their considerations regarding the need that treatment be offered immediately after the diagnosis has been established and that both diagnosis and treatment are provided at the same health-care institution. 18. That the Commission pointed out that it “took cognizance of the information provided by the representatives and expects diagnosis procedures to conclude as soon as possible in order to start treatment, taking into consideration the importance this reparation measure has for the victims.” 19. That the Court highlights the willingness of the State to comply with this measure “[…]the moment the relatives so require and at the time they deem convenient.” Notwithstanding, it reiterates that for this diagnosis, evaluation and psychological and psychiatric treatment to be effective, not only is the good will of the State indispensable, but also the effective participation of the victims. Therefore, it is necessary that the representatives take forthwith all necessary steps so that the State may comply with this obligation. * * * 20. That regarding the obligation to adopt the necessary measures to strengthen existing control mechanisms at the State arrest centers (sixth operative paragraph of the Judgment rendered on September 12, 2005), the State informed about the adoption of a number of measures, to wit: i) the enforcement of Act No. 906 of the Criminal Procedural Code in effect since 2008, which sets forth a system which is