common interveners regarding the lack of access and bureaucratic obstacles faced by victims and their next of kin to access to health services, as well as the delicate health situation and urgent need for care of some of them. 47. Taking into account the parameters discussed by the Court with respect to the way the State may comply with this measure of reparation, the Court considers that it remains pending compliance, since Peru has not implemented an effective and differentiated way that benefits the victims in this case. Therefore, the Court urges the State to not only adopt, without delay, all necessary actions to implement this measure, but also to continue to promptly report on the progress and results of its implementation. The Court also notes that the fulfillment of this obligation by the State depends, to a significant degree, on the cooperation and information provided by the common interveners and the beneficiaries. Therefore, it stresses the importance of continuing and advancing coordination between the State and the common interveners in order to comply with the measure so that it can effectively benefit all beneficiaries. In addition, the Court deems it appropriate for the State to forward a copy of the "Supreme Decree No. 006-2006- SA," through which it extended the provision health through SIS to the victims of the human rights violations declared by the Court. 48. With regard to the payment of the amount stated in the Judgment to help the victims who can prove residence abroad receive medical and psychological treatment, the Court points out that the deadline for the implementation of this measure has been widely exceeded since, according to the Judgment, payments were to be made within 18 months of notification. The Court also established a flexible manner in which the State can allow the victims to establish their state of physical and mental health (supra Considering clause 40).’’ In relation to the allegations of the common intervener Monica Feria, who is a surviving victim in this case, with regard to residing abroad and the need for psychological treatment (supra Considering clause 42), there is evidence in the case file on the monitoring compliance with the Judgment that an application was filed with the Ministry of Justice on March 31, 2010 for the State “to comply with the deposit of [...] five thousand US dollars [in favor of Mrs. Monica Feria Tinta] who has proven to be domiciled abroad and to be in need of psychological treatment.” 54 The Court notes that the State bases the failure to execute this reparation because this measure has been ‘judicialized.’ In this regard, the Court considers that the method of compliance with this measure of reparation does not necessarily imply a judicial proceeding, even more so since more than seven years have passed without this measure being effectively implemented. The Court requested the State to report what or which other bodies or competent institutions could, as soon as possible, make appropriate determinations for the implementation of this measure to Mrs. Monica Feria Tinta as well as any other victims who submitted information or requests for such purposes. Peru shall take all necessary actions to comply with this measure as quickly as possible, in order for it to fulfill its purpose of providing assistance to victims who seek medical and psychological treatment. E. Education on international standards regarding treatment of prisoners for agents of the Peruvian security forces (operative paragraph 15 of the Judgment) Rojas V. Peru. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 26, 2013, Considering clause 11. 54 Communication dated March 31, 2010, signed by Mrs. Gaby Balcázar Medina and Jesusa Demetria Chipana, addressed to the Specialized Supranational Public Prosecutor’s Office (annex 3 to the brief filed by the common intervener Mónica Feria Tinta on April 11, 2010, case file of monitoring of compliance, tome II, folios 941 and 942). 21