had no difficulty in being attended when she went to a health care center. Therefore, the Court appreciates the different State initiatives of a general nature related to the public health care system, as well as the willingness revealed by the Supranational Attorney to explain to the victims the scope of the health care insurance and to help overcome any difficulties that could arise in each case. 27. Furthermore, the Court recalls that this measure of reparation imposes on the State the obligation to provide free, appropriate, and comprehensive psychological attention and treatment, for as long as necessary, as agreed with each victim and following an evaluation by a psychologist. 8 In this regard, as the State has advised, the victims in this case are able to access psychological and psychiatric treatment in the health care establishments of the Ministry of Health, in line with the problems included in the PEAS, or with the special coverage if the problems are not covered by that program. 28. Consequently, based on the information provided and given that the victims or their representatives have not reported the existence of any factor that has prevented them from being provided with effective care and attention, the Court considers that it is in order to end the monitoring of compliance with this measure of reparation, in the understanding that the State will continue providing the attention that the victims require for as long as necessary, in the terms indicated. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of its authority to monitor compliance with its decisions and pursuant to Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65, 67 and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, 25(1) and 30 of its Statute, and 31(2) and 69 of its Rules of Procedure. DECIDES THAT: 1. As indicated in the pertinent considering paragraphs of this Order, the State has complied fully with its obligations to: a) Establish a course or subject on human rights and labor law, called the “Cátedra Pedro Huilca,” pursuant to the first operative paragraph, subparagraph (d), of the Judgment; b) Recall and praise the work of Pedro Huilca Tecse in favor of the trade union movement in Peru during the official celebrations of May 1 (Labor Day), pursuant to the first operative paragraph, subparagraph (e), of the Judgment; c) Erect a bust in the memory of Pedro Huilca Tecse, pursuant to the first operative paragraph, subparagraph (f), of the Judgment, and 8 Cf. Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 116. 10