13 39. That the representatives stated during the hearing that “up to this moment, the Paraguayan State did not provide for any treatment, [a]fter more than three years from the notice of the Judgment and [...] [considering that this obligation] is of immediate compliance". Moreover, they expressed that the last weeks of September 2009, “pressured by the hearing convened by the Court, […] it offer[ed] a card so that the next-of-kin and victims are able to have access to medical treatment”. They considered that the State has the duty to visit the victims, explain the medical treatment it provides and conduct an individual evaluation of each one of the next-of-kin. Coupled with this and in relation to certain next-of-kin of the victims, they asserted that, currently, Mr. Julio Ramirez Villalba, brother of the Villalba brothers, had to resort to the health services of the Argentine Republic to undergo surgery since he no longer had that benefit in Paraguay. Also, that the mother of Mr. Mancuello suffers from serious neurological problems. To that end, they begged the State to approach the victims and include this pending issue in the “Coordination Meeting between the State and the victims" (infra Considering clause 55 and 61). 40. That the Commission congratulated the State on this aspect, given the fact that it delivered the medical cards, putting emphasis on that the State should consider the specific circumstances of each victim in case the victims wish to receive medical treatment. 41. That the Court notes that the State informed, on September 24, 2009, the victims, by means of the representative, that the medical cards were at their disposal at the Ministry of Public Health and Social Welfare. Even though the Tribunal values the measures adopted as part of the compliance with this obligation, it is evident the delay in the implementation thereof, which should have been immediately complied with. To this end, it is concerning that, after more than three years of the delivery of the Judgment, the next-of-kin do not have appropriate medical and psychological treatment for the victims of the instant case, including the complete provision of medicines, free of charge. This Tribunal recalls the terms established in the Judgment as to that the psychological treatment must take into consideration the specific circumstances and needs of each persons, so that it is provided through collective, family or individual treatment, as agreed with each of them and following individual assessment. Therefore, even though the Court takes into account that the State has made a commitment to provide said treatment “immediately, upon the presentation of the identity cards at the national health centers of the country", it considers it is essential for the State, in order to provide the treatment, to use all the means necessary to deliver such cards to the beneficiaries. Therefore, the Tribunal requests the State to continue informing, in time fashion, on the progress and results in the implementation of this measure. * * * Monument in memory of the victims 42. That as to the obligation of the State to erect a monument in memory of the victims (operative paragraph ten of the Judgment), the State informed that on November 5, 2008, the representative of the Municipality of Asunción offered the beneficiaries two possible places- public parks- located within the center, where it could be possible to erect the monument to the disappeared persons. During the hearing, the State specified that said possibilities were: one in the "Plaza de los Derechos Humanos" and the other in the "Plaza de los Desaparecidos". Moreover, it mentioned that the victims rejected the proposal of the