9 that the maximum prison term in Guatemala is fifty years and that Mr. Raxcacó Reyes has been sentenced to forty years; that neither of the parties alleged that the domestic courts have failed in their duty to state their decisions or have committed a violation of the judicial guarantees; that the domestic judges heard the arguments presented by the representatives of Mr. Raxcacó Reyes and what he had to say at the hearing held to such effect. As a consequence, the Court deems that the State has fully complied with this part of the Judgment. * * * 20. That as to the duty to provide Mr. Raxcacó Reyes, prior manifestation of his consent and for the time necessary, with an adequate medical and psychological treatment, including the supply of medications (operative paragraph ten of the Judgment), the State detailed several steps that it has taken from January 15, 2002 to June 15, 2007 in order to comply with this issue. Furthermore, it pointed out that “[t]he Division of Psychology and the psychologist of the criminal facility informed that Mr. Raxcacó Reyes voluntarily stated that he did not need the psychological treatment and therefore, he does not receive therapy or any other type of medicine". 21. That the representatives and the Commission acknowledged that the State has provided certain type of medical care but they pointed out that the victim’s nextof-kin are the ones who are providing him with the necessary medicine. That the Commission expressed that the State mus t bear in mind that "a good part" of the physical conditions and diseases the victim is suffering are a direct consequence of the suffering he was subjected to, and particularly, of the excessive time he remained uncertain about the possible execution. 22. That the Court considers that the State has taken some steps in order to comply with this part of the Judgment, but it deems it is adequate to obtain further information by the State, especially regarding the alleged lack of supply of medicine to the victim. Furthermore, the Tribunal deems it is appropriate that the representatives confirm whether the wish of Mr. Raxcacó Reyes is not to receive psychological treatment. * * * 23. That as to the duty to adopt the necessary measures to enable Mr. Raxcacó Reyes to receive periodic visits from Mrs. Olga Isabel Vicente (operative paragraph eleven of the Judgment), the State informed that Mrs. Vicente is confined in the Center of Female Orientation (COF) and that, after having been personally interviewed, Mrs. Vicente would have pointed out that " it has been approximately two years since she has no relationship with Mr. Raxcacó Reyes since he has a relationship with another inmate of the Center of Female Orientation, who has requested permission to visit him at the Granja Modelo de Rehabilitación Pavón, affirming that they are a couple. Therefore, she stated that she does not wish to communicate with Mr. Raxcacó Reyes despite the fact that he is still her husband and pointed out that she is not ready to visit him”. 24. That neither the representatives nor the Commission made reference to that argument of the State.