79 252. In this regard, the State indicated that, on April 8, 2010, the Ministry of Health and Sports signed an Agreement with the Petroleum Company Health Fund entitled “InterInstitutional agreement for the Provision of Medical Services to the Members of the IbsenCárdenas [sic] Family,” in order to: (a) provide medical health services to the Ibsen family; (b) provide the medicines and inputs required for the medical treatment and care of the beneficiaries, and (c) establish mechanisms to allow the beneficiaries full access to their medical treatment and care. 253. The Court considers it appropriate to order the State to provide free, immediate, adequate and effective medical, psychological or psychiatric care, through its specialized public health institutions to the victims who request it. To this end, the specific needs of the beneficiaries must be taken into consideration by the execution of a prior physical and psychological assessment. Furthermore, the respective treatments must be provided in Bolivia for all the time necessary and include the free provision of any medicines that may be required.275 254. The Court assesses positively the actions that the State has taken in order to provide medical care to the victims in this case (supra para. 252). In relation to the said “Inter-Institutional Agreement,” the Court has verified that this is a document in which the Ministry of Health and Sports agrees with the Petroleum Company Health Fund to provide medical services to the members of the Ibsen family. In this regard, referring to the arguments of the representatives (supra para. 251), the Court considers that any possible errors in the said “Agreement” must be rectified to avoid problems in its execution that might represent an unnecessary burden for the beneficiaries of the respective medical services. Furthermore, despite the willingness of the State expressed by the signature of the said “Agreement,” the Court considers that the agreement may not limit or modify the measures ordered in this judgment, and cannot impose a disproportionate burden on the beneficiaries. At any case, the State’s obligation to comply with this measure of reparation in the terms ordered subsists regardless of the said “Agreement.” C.5 Training for justice administrators and education on human rights 255. The Commission and the representatives asked the Court to order the State “to undertake the legal, administrative and any other measures necessary to avoid repetition of similar facts, speciliy, measures to avoid any lack of diligence in the investigations and to eliminate the legal or other obstacles that have prevented the clarification, identification and punishment of those responsible for the serious human rights violations that occurred during the military dictatorships.” Furthermore, in their final written arguments, the representatives asked the Court to order training on “human rights principles for public officials, members of the Armed Forces and National Police,” and that the courses offered should “allude to [this] case, among others.” 256. Meanwhile, the State indicated that it had made “significant progress” with regard to guarantees of non-repetition. In particular, it maintained that the State’s new Constitution, promulgated on February 7, 2009, establishes “an extensive list of fundamental rights that reflects the principal universal and regional human rights instruments […].”276 It also emphasized that, on September 26, 2008, it ratified the 275 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Reparations and Costs, supra note 269, para. 45; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 255, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 235. 276 In this token, the State expressed: a) article 256 of said Constitution has stablished that international human rights treaties and covenants are part of the constitutional body and that said treaties and covenants are