5 representatives of the victims.6 The committee’s mandate “would be exercised for an initial period of two months,” during which the parties would “define the program of attention and treatment of the victims and a timetable for its implementation,” to be sent to the Court “within two months, at the most, of the date of signature of the memorandum.” 8. On April 26, 2011, the State submitted a document entitled “Memorandum of understanding concerning compliance with the judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Measure of medical and psychological attention” and another document entitled “Road map for attention to victims,” in which it indicated the proposals for the State’s implementation of the measures (supra having seen paragraph 5). 9. On June 22, 2011, the Commission indicated that the State had "failed to explain to what extent […] the recommendations of the assessment reports prepared [by the non-governmental organizations] would be applied at the treatment stage.” Similarly, the Commission stated that the State had not referred to “the differentiated impact on the beneficiaries of the measure compared to the other users of the social security” system, or the “path to follow for urgent cases.” Lastly, the Commission recalled that “the principle that should guide implementation […] of reparations is effectiveness,” and that the State should not confuse “the provision of social services that it provides to the individual, with the reparations to which the victims of human rights violations have a right.” 10. On July 11, 2011, the representatives indicated that the State “had again failed to comply with the agreements” regarding the meetings established, as well as the substantive agreements signed by the parties during previous meetings. On this last point, they considered that “the document entitle ‘Road map for attention’ did not respond to the previously agreed criteria,” because “it is not a special urgency mechanism for victims of human rights violations,” and “its contents, reproduce, [or] at most summarize, the same procedure of individual insurance coverage and access to health care services established for all Colombians under the General Social Security System.” The representatives maintained that “the major obstacle [to the implementation of the measure of reparation] relates to the reluctance and inexperience of the officials responsible for preparing the proposal” and they called attention to the effect of re-victimization that “the State’s numerous and unjustifiable delays over the course of […] six years” have caused to the victims. 11. On August 22, 2011, the State described the progress made in the implementation of the coordination process following the declarations of “disagreement […] [by] the representatives,” owing to the “supposed non-compliance of the Ministry of Social Protection with what was agreed in [… the] memorandum [of understanding].” In this context, the State forwarded “a new proposal for the road map for attending priority cases, and also those that can be included in group with addictions.” In the proposal, the State specified that: a) The road map for attention seeks “to ensure that the victims can access the Colombian General Social Security System for Health Care.” In this regard, they will have access to the provisions of health services through “an insurance plan”; b) The “general elements” of the proposal are: (i) to provide “coverage to all the victims”; (ii) to ensure free choice of the Health Care Enterprise (hereinafter “EPS”); (iii) to equalize the benefit plans of the beneficiaries who have a subsidized regime [for those who are unable to pay] to those who are affiliated to the contributive regime. Regarding the services that are not 6 A representative of each non-governmental organization accredited to the Court.