8 mentioned several difficulties such as lack of sufficient information to the beneficiaries and medications for their illnesses. The representatives concluded that although the acts of the State previously described are considered positive, these are not identified by the beneficiaries of the Judgment as a reparation, given that the medical and psychological attention were within the framework of general health services provided by the State, and did not constitute specific attention for the victims of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre as ordered in the Judgment on Reparations, therefore such State actions did not have redressing effects. In the brief of February 24, 2009, they added that they had knowledge that the State had not “renewed the contract” of the personnel who was providing the medical and psychological attention, “a fact which is generating fear that the little progress that has been achieved thus far will be lost,” additionally, that the beneficiaries have not been informed of the mechanisms to provide continuity to this paragraph, hence it requested for the State to be required to provide information on this (supra Having Seen 5). 25. That in its observations the Commission valued the attention provided by the State to the victims in the instant case. However, it observed that the State omitted reference to the free supply of the medications required by the victims, therefore it considered pertinent for the State to inform on the manner in which it would comply with that point, as well as on the criticisms presented by the representatives. Additionally, the Commission deemed pertinent to review “the analysis performed by the State, whereby it was determined that there are beneficiaries to the Judgment only in seven and not thirteen communities,” as well as for the names of the individuals who are receiving medical and psychological attention to be reported, and stressed the importance of knowing the measures being implemented or to be implemented by the State to ensure that the treatment provided is comprehensive. 26. That the Court appreciates the measures adopted by the State to comply with the obligation to provide medical and psychological treatment to the beneficiaries of the Judgment. However, the representatives observed that although the State has been complying, it has done so inadequately and, apparently, it no longer has personnel to provide that care. Considering the foregoing, the Court deems necessary that, when reporting on compliance with this reparation, the State must refer to the aforementioned observations of the representatives and the Commission, and, specifically: a) whether medical and psychological attention is being provided and if there is personnel, b) the names of the beneficiaries of the medical and/or psychological attention; c) whether the medications are being provided for free to the beneficiaries who have required them; d) the advances in the creation of a specialized program for psychological and psychiatric treatment, under the terms of paragraph 107 of the Judgment on Reparations; and e) the advances in the functioning of the committee who will assess the psychical and mental condition of the victims, according to paragraph 108 of that Judgment and Considering paragraphs 29 to 32 of the Order of November 28, 2007 (supra Having Seen 2). Additionally, the Court considers it necessary for the representatives and the Commission to provide their observations, and once this information is received, it will assess compliance with this reparation. * * * 27. That with regards to the need to provide housing included in operative paragraph eight of the Judgment (supra Having Seen 1), on November 25, 2008 the State reported that “it has planned […] the signing of an Agreement […] between the Guatemalan Housing Fund and COPREDEH, to begin the paperwork for construction of the houses […]”