7 23. That the State informed of the availability of 66.66% of the funds necessary to comply with the sixth operative paragraph ordering the State to maintain and improve the infrastructure of the memorial chapel (supra Having Seen clause No. 1). However, the State pointed out that the payment was not made because it had not been informed of the name of the persons responsible for receiving the money and implementing the project. Therefore, it requested the Court to take this matter into consideration (supra Having Seen clause No. 2). 24. That the representatives stated that they had already informed the State of the names of the persons in charge of the administration and improvement works planned for the chapel built in the place where the massacre occurred. Subsequently, they recognized the State’s support for the creation of an association responsible for performing the improvements in the chapel and informed that only some final details remained to be addressed for the State to be able to deliver the funds to the selected persons (supra Having Seen clause No. 3). 25. That the Commission expressed confidence that the State would coordinate with the representatives the best way to perform the works in the chapel, without unnecessary delay, taking into account that 66.66% of the amount intended for such purposes was already available (supra Having Seen clause No. 4). 26. That, based on the foregoing, the Court notes that, according to the information provided by the representatives, the members of the Plan de Sánchez community decided to create an association, composed by them and the representatives, to manage the maintenance and improvement works to be performed in the chapel, for which the State provided assistance. 27. That the State must pay the amount ordered by the Court, in accordance with the sixth operative paragraph of the Judgment rendered in the instant case (supra Having Seen clause No. 1). * * * 28. That the State reported on the progress made in relation to compliance with the seventh operative paragraph (supra Having Seen clause No. 1), indicating that in June 2007, by means of a letter of understanding, an assessment committee had been created between the State, through the Comisión Presidencial Coordinadora de la Política del Ejecutivo en Materia de Derechos Humanos (Presidential Human Rights Policy Coordination Commission, hereinafter “the COPREDEH”) and the Ministry of Health and Social Assistance (hereinafter “the Ministry of Health”), the representatives of the Committee of Victims, the representatives of the victims, the Centro para la Acción Legal en Derechos Humanos (Centre for Human Rights Legal Action, hereinafter “CALDH”) and the Equipo de Estudios Comunitarios y Acción Psicosocial (Community Studies and Psychosocial Action Team, hereinafter “ECAP”). That, among other responsibilities, such committee will provide advice and participate, together with the Ministry of Health, in making psychosocial diagnoses and drafting the health care standards and protocols regarding cases of psychosocial impairment resulting from the political violence and serious human rights violations. Such Committee will operate for five years, submit quarterly reports to the COPREDEH and be formalized by means of a ministerial decision. In addition, the State informed that on “[…] August 29, 2007, the State […] published the “Protocol for mental health services to populations that