7 24. That the Court notes that the State has not adequately informed on this reparation measure. Likewise, it has not submitted information on the steps taken in order to provide treatment to Gerardo Vargas-Areco’s siblings. In this regard, the Court notes that, in accordance with paragraphs 159 and 160 of the Judgment, together with paragraph 71(28) thereof, the beneficiaries of this reparation measure are Gerardo Vargas-Areco’s parents and siblings. Therefore, the Court deems it of the utmost importance that this reparation measure starts being effectively and fully complied with in relation to all its beneficiaries, if they so require, and requests the State to provide updated information thereon. * * * 25. That regarding the obligation to design and implement training programs and regular courses on human rights for all members of the Paraguayan Armed Forces (twelfth operative paragraph of the Judgment), the State informed on the adoption of the following four measures: 1) the approval by the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces by means of General Order 237 of December 4, 2002 of the “Standard Teaching Program on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law” at the basic, intermediate, and advanced levels; 2) the approval by means of General Order No. 112 of June 28, 2007, of the “Manual of Humanitarian Rules, Human Rights, and International Humanitarian Law in the Armed Forces,” to be distributed among the Staff of the Armed Forces; 3) the distribution of 1,930 copies of the didactic material entitled “Soldier’s Guide – Enforcement of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Basic Rules,” which describes the procedures to be followed in case of violations of human rights and lists the institutions where they should be reported, their addresses, and contact numbers,” and 4) the report drawn by the National Defense Ministry entitled “Training Program Military Rating Period 1st Stage Year-2008.” 26. That the representatives pointed out that “there is no proof that the “Soldier’s Guide” has been distributed among conscripts, nor that it has been effectively used by soldiers who were abused or mistreated in military units.” Additionally, the representatives pointed out that the various documents submitted regarding compliance with this measure “are not sufficient to show full compliance therewith.” The representatives insisted that it is necessary that the State “ [r]eport effectively on the programs and course[s concerned].” They further argued that the report submitted by the State and drawn by the National Defense Ministry states “regarding the training given exclusively to Army members,” which, however, was ordered by the Inter-American Court to be given to all services of the Armed Forces.” Furthermore, the representatives stated that “[t]he information is exclusively related to the training given ‘to conscripts recently enlisted in the Troops of the General Headquarters of the FCEME in their first 17 weeks,’” whereby “no information was submit[ted] about training given in this topic to permanent cadres and Army officers, nor about subsequent training in human rights, if any, given to conscripts.” Furthermore, they argued that “[n]o information was submit[ted] on the academic qualifications of those who give courses on human rights or on the general requirements to give such courses.” Finally, the representatives pointed out that “the State has not informed the Court on any aspects regarding the design of the training programs” ordered by the Judgment, nor on their objectives, methodology, assessment criteria, the staff to whom they were addressed, or their suitability to the specific requirements of the various services of the Armed Forces “both for the permanent cadres and conscripts.” 27. That the Commission “appreciat[ed] the information submitted by the State and expects that it may continue informing the Court on the measures adopted to comply with this obligation.” Furthermore, it pointed out that the report drawn by the National Defense