delegated an official from the Government Secretariat to deal with the situation directly. The latter went immediately to Tame and, in coordination with the Mayor of this municipality, provided the initial emergency humanitarian aid to the population that had displaced from Santo Domingo. Furthermore, the emergency humanitarian aid was extended for 20 days after December 13, 1998, and in addition to food, included accommodation and clothing.”439 307. First, the Court assesses positively the general initiatives taken by the State related to the system of public health care. Despite this, it finds it pertinent to indicate that the provision of social services that the State offers the individual cannot be confused with the reparations to which the victims of human rights violations have a right, owing to the specific harm resulting from the violation.440 308. On the one hand, the Court considers that, even though the State clarified that those who were injured owing to the events that occurred in Santo Domingo on December 13, 1998, were provided with the necessary medical attention through the Colombian public hospital network, the medical records provided by the State do not allow verification of this assertion, because they all refer to medical care provided on December 13, 1998, or in the following days, but do not refer to a treatment that has been extended over time in keeping with the specific characteristics of each victim. 309. Therefore, and noting the violations and the harm suffered by the victims, as it has in other cases, 441 the Court considers it necessary to order measures of rehabilitation in this case. In this regard, the State must provide, free of charge, adequately and effectively through its specialized health institutions, medical, psychological or psychosocial attention and treatment to the victims and their next of kin that request this, following their informed consent, including the provision, free of charge, of the medicines and tests that may eventually be required, based on the specific p ailments of each of them. In addition, the respective treatments must be provided, insofar as possible, in the centers nearest to their places of residence,442 for as long as necessary. When providing the psychological or psychosocial treatment, the particular circumstances and needs of each victim must also be considered so that they are provided with collective, family or individual treatment, as agreed with each of them and following an individual appraisal.443 C.3. Other measures requested 310. The Commission recommended to the State that it “provide reparation to the children affected by the bombardment of the village of Santo Domingo through measures in which the best interest of the child, respect for their dignity, the right of children to participate, and respect for their opinions in the process of designing and implementing the measures of reparation prevail.” The representatives did not present arguments in this regard. For its part, the State indicated that it had provided emergency humanitarian aid to the population,” that “measures had been adopted for the reconstruction of Santo Domingo and to improve its housing” (supra para. 264,) and that “also an assistance was provided that equaled five million Colombian pesos to the individuals who authenticated their status as orphans owing to the events that occurred on December 13, 1998, in the said village.” It concluded by indicating that all these measures directly benefited the surviving children. 311. In relation to this measure of reparation, the Court considers that the purpose of the Commission’s request was unclear. 439 Affidavit provided by Nilsa de Jesús Díaz Herrera (evidence file, tome 50, folio 27987). 440 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton field”) v. Mexico, para. 529, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 350. 441 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 87, paras. 42 and 45, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 352. 442 Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, para. 270, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 353. 443 Cf. Case of 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 278, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 353. ‐ 88 ‐