Report and that, consequently, it was not admissible for the presumed victim to allege new facts that differed from those contained in that report, without prejudice to presenting those that would explain, clarify or reject facts that had been mentioned in the said report and submitted to the consideration of the Court. 150. The Court finds that the request made by the representatives with their final written arguments was time-barred176 and, therefore, will not grant the measures requested. D. Measures of rehabilitation 151. The Commission indicated that the State should adopt measures of rehabilitation for any family members who so wish. The representatives asked that the State be required to ensure voluntary, free and permanent medical and psychological treatment for the direct victims and their families.177 The State did not present arguments with regard to this request. 152. The Court finds it appropriate to establish a measure of reparation that provides satisfactory care for the physical, psychological or psychiatric ailments suffered by the victims as a result of the violations established in this judgment. Therefore, it orders the State to provide, free of charge and on a priority basis, adequate health and psychological or psychiatric care to the victims who require this, after they have indicated their agreement, for the time necessary to treat the effects derived from the violations declared in this judgment. 153. In addition, the victims must have immediate, free and priority access to the health care services and the respective treatments must be provided for as long as necessary and in a place that is accessible for the victims in this case. When providing the medical, psychological or psychiatric treatment, the particular circumstances and needs of each victim must be considered, following an individual evaluation by a health professional. 178 The victims who request this measure of reparation, or their legal representatives, have six months from notification of this judgment to advise the State of their intention to receive medical, psychological or psychiatric treatment.179 E. Guarantees of non-repetition E.1. Training for public officials 154. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to provide training programs on international human rights standards in general, especially for the Police of Aragua state, and for agents of justice. The representatives did not refer to this request. The State indicated that, in recent years, it had implemented various training programs on human rights and, above all, on differentiated and progressive use of force, for police officers throughout national territory, including the police force of Aragua state. It added that most of these programs The Court’s Rules of Procedure, Art. 40: “Brief with pleadings, motions and evidence. […] 2. The brief with pleadings, motions and evidence shall contain: […] d. all claims, including those relating to reparations and costs.” Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 359, and Case of Yarce et al. v. Colombia, para. 362. 176 They added that the services should be provided by competent professionals, include the provision of any medicines that were required, and that the State should also be responsible for other expenses arising from the provision of treatment such as transportation costs. 177 Cf. Case of the 19 Traders v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 278, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia, para. 206. 178 Cf. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 253, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, para. 341. 179 -43-