7 fees at health facilities. The representatives replied that public health facilities did not recognize this identification card when it was presented. They added that victims had attended several meetings with State authorities, and therefore it would not be difficult to identify them, and it was therefore necessary for the State to begin providing efficient and ongoing healthcare for all the victims. In this regard, the Court takes note of the commitment assumed by Paraguay (infra Considering clause 13) and adds that the State should be the one to take the initiative of providing victims and their family members with medical and psychological care that is effective and consistent with the terms of the judgment. 9. That regarding the obligation to "ensure the life, personal integrity and safety of the persons who gave affidavits and their next of kin and [to] provide them with protection against anyone," as provided in Operative point 15 of the judgment, the Court observes the report by the representatives to the effect that "...for now, the victims have received no type of threat that would merit the granting of special measures of protection." The Court finds that it would be appropriate to continue receiving information on this operative point. 10. That in the framework of the private hearing on monitoring compliance with the judgment delivered in the instant case, the parties presented their arguments on the state of compliance with judgment. They also submitted to the Court a Memorandum of Understanding signed in a working meeting held between the parties upon completion of the private hearing, in which the State agreed to adopt a variety of procedures to bring it into full compliance with some of the measures of redress, as well as other measures that would bring progress in complying with the orders of the Court. 11. That the Court applauds the preparation of the Memorandum of Understanding by the parties and the commitments adopted therein by the State. 12. That the Court recalls that, in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 315 to 322, 330, 331 and Operative point 19 of the judgment of September 2, 2004, all the deadlines for complying with the measures of redress ordered in the judgment have now elapsed. Notwithstanding this fact, a Court takes a positive view of the agreement made by the parties in which they set specific deadlines and name authorities who will be responsible for adopting concrete measures for complying with the judgment. 13. That the measures outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding must be performed in accordance with the provisions of the operative points in the September 2, 2004 judgment. That for the purpose of weighing the state of compliance with that judgment, and in view of timetables set by the parties in the Memorandum of Understanding, the Court will require reports from the State within three and six months (infra Operative point 2). To this effect, the State must provide the Court with specific information on adoption of the following measures specified in the Memorandum of Understanding: a) in the space of six months, a draft public policy for treatment of children and adolescents in conflict with the law, through the Human Rights Department of the Supreme Court, the office of the Deputy Minister of the National Secretariat for Children and the General Directorate of the National Service for Care of