3 parties to initiate a “process of rapprochement” and to present a “timetable for actions as well as substantive proposals” to settle the disputes that existed at that time. 2. On July 2, 2010, the representatives referred to the “proposal for implementation of the measures of reparation concerning medical and psychological attention” that they had forwarded to the State, and advised the Court that, “although they had delivered […] [this] proposed memorandum of understanding,” they had not received “any observation or response.” 3. On July 2, 2010, the State submitted to the Court a brief with “considerations” and “proposals […] aimed at initiating the provision of the service.” In this document, the State indicated that: a) “Despite the State’s willingness to comply fully with the measure of reparation,” several obstacles to its implementation had arisen, above all: (i) “its innovative nature,” and (ii) the institutional adjustments required to comply fully with the criteria established by the Court”; b) The Ministries of Social Protection and of Foreign Affairs had been working to elaborate the “most appropriate methodological path” to implement the measure of reparation; however, various “concerns” had arisen following the final diagnostic reports presented by the non-governmental organizations. These concerns reflected aspects that made it difficult to comply with the measure” and which, in the State’s opinion, “go beyond” its obligation “in the context of complying with what the Court ordered”; c) Regarding the comments made by the representatives during the private hearing held on May 19, 2010, it indicated that: (i) the signature of the contract with CAPRECOM cannot be interpreted as “a way of delaying the start of the treatment stage”; (ii) regarding the “supposed limitation of the attention to the beneficiaries identified in the judgments,” it indicated that, in compliance with the Court’s rulings in the cases of the Mapiripán Massacre and the Pueblo Bello Massacre, it had included in the budget of the contract signed with CAPRECOM “resources that ensure the medical and psychological care of the beneficiaries to the extent that they are identified, and (iii) it has not disregarded the diagnoses made during the first stage of coordination,” because “most” of the recommendations are reflected in the contract signed with CAPRECOM. d) It reiterated its “willingness and capacity” to initiate the treatment of the beneficiaries of the measure of reparation “by means of the interadministrative contract signed by the Ministry of Social Protection and the health care company, CAPRECOM.” In addition, the State advised its intention of “reaching agreement on and coordinating” with the representatives a “mechanism to monitor the health care stage within the framework of [that] contract.” To this end, it proposed “to request the support of the PanAmerican Health Organization.” Lastly, it urged the elaboration of a “simple informative manual” that included “the basic elements” that the beneficiaries, the authorities, and the health care providers should take into account, as well as the holding of “periodical evaluation meetings to identify problems” in the provision of the service. 5. On July 26, 2010, the representatives forwarded their proposed “Integral health care reparation program (medical and psychological treatment) from a psychosocial perspective, in the context of compliance with the judgments of the Inter-American Court in eight Colombian cases” (supra having seen paragraph 3). In this regard, they indicated that: