judgment, that as a result of the facts of [that] case they need to receive appropriate medical or psychological treatment, the State must deposit in a bank account indicated by each victim the sum of US$5,000 (five thousand United States dollars), so that this sum can contribute to the said treatment. 560 397. The Court has not received any information that the State has complied with this measure of reparation. In the instant case, the Court has established that Ms. J. was a victim of a violation of Article 5(2) of the Convention at the time of her initial arrest (supra paras. 313 to 368). The Court considers that, owing to the severity of the said facts, it is possible that they resulted in medical consequences that must be remedied, without prejudice to the reparation established in the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Consequently, as it has in other case, 561 the Court finds it necessary to establish a measure of reparation that provides appropriate treatment for the psychiatric or psychological problems caused to the victim. The Court observes that Ms. J. does not live in Peru, so that, if she requests psychological or psychiatric treatment, the State must award her, once, the sum of US$7,000.00 (seven thousand United States dollars) for the expenses of psychological or psychiatric treatment, as well as for medicines and other related expenses, so that she may receive this treatment in the places where she resides. 562 Ms. J. must advise whether she wishes to receive psychological or psychiatric treatment within six months of notification of this Judgment. C.2) Satisfaction: publication and dissemination of the Judgment 398. If Ms. J. wishes, and advises the Court to this effect, the State must publish, as the Court has ordered in other cases: 563 (a) the official summary of this Judgment prepared by the Court, once, in the official gazette; (b) the official summary of this Judgment prepared by the Court, once, in a national newspaper with widespread coverage, and c) this Judgment in its entirety, available for one year, on an official website. The State must make these publications within nine months of notification of this Judgment, if Ms. J. wishes these publications to be made. C.3) Guarantees of non-repetition: request to adapt domestic law 399. The Commission asked the Court to order the State “[t]o complete the process of adapting the provisions of Decree-Law 25,475 that are still in force and the incompatibility of which with the American Convention was declared in the [… Merits] Report.” The State indicated that “part of this recommendation had already been complied with by adapting and rectifying the law with another law that respected the due guarantees.” Regarding Article 13(c) of Decree-Law No. 25,475, the State indicated that, “in the opinion of the Peruvian Constitutional Court, this provision is not unconstitutional or incompatible with the American Convention […]; thus, this restriction is valid.” 400. First, this Court recalls that the laws applied in this case have already been examined in previous judgments of the Court. In this regard, the Court reiterates its previous considerations when exercising its competence to monitor compliance with judgment in the cases of Castillo Petruzzi et al., Loayza Tamayo and Lori Berenson v. Peru, in the sense that the State has adopted measures to comply with the reform of domestic law as a result of the violations declared in the respective judgments. 564 560 Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 450. 561 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 Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 311. 562 Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 270, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 340. 563 Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 270, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 340. 564 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra, considering paragraph 19; Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra, considering paragraph 34, and Case of 117