5 the Interior and Justice did not include an express acknowledgement by the State of the facts that gave rise to the violations declared” by the Court and did not “acknowledge the obligation to see that justice is done,” “nor did it express any commitment to that end.” According to the representatives, this failure to apologize expressly “was condemned by those present.” The representatives also indicated that the act “gave rise to public declarations of condemnation by several next of kin of individuals disappeared during the military dictatorship, the media and journalists, human rights defenders, and the Ombudsman, as well as a widespread debate in society on the need for the State to apologize to the victims of human rights violations that took place during the military dictatorship.” 20. For its part, the Commission assessed positively “that the State had organized and carried out an act acknowledging responsibility”; nevertheless, it observed “that some aspects of the way in which this act was carried out were not appropriate for achieving the essential purpose for which it was conceived; namely, moral reparation.” The Commission considered that the invitation to the family was not issued with “sufficient notice”; that the “public apology, as part of the State’s acknowledgement of international responsibility” was important, bearing in mind that “it is essential that, when organizing acts of this nature, special consideration be given to the individual expectations of the victims and their next of kin if appropriate, including their wish to intervene,” and it awaited “details of the measures adopted by the Panamanian State to make up for the omissions in the public act to acknowledge responsibility.” 21. The President finds that the Court requires more information from the parties on the acts of public apology that took place in relation to the provisions of the judgment. * * * 22. With regard to the obligation to provide the medical and psychological treatment required by Graciela De León Rodríguez, Patria Portugal and Franklin Portugal (thirteenth operative paragraph of the judgment), the State advised that “it had given instructions for the Santo Tomás Hospital to continue providing Heliodoro Portugal’s next of kin, with the required medical and psychological treatment, free of charge and immediately.” 23. In this regard, the representatives indicated that this obligation “should have been complied with immediately on notification of the judgment,” but that “the State only made [the said services] available to the Portugal family five months later.” They also indicated that “Graciela De León resides permanently in the city of Penonomé” and, therefore, cannot attend the Santo Tomás Hospital, located in Panama City; consequently, “her medical and psychological care should be provided by a specialized institution near her place of residence.” However, “to date, the State has not taken any measure in this regard.” Furthermore, regarding the psychological treatment, the representatives underscored that the State had indicated that “it has no outpatients system or trained personnel specialized in victims of grave human rights violations in order to offer the services as the Court recommended”; however, the Ministry of Health had asked for support from the Pan-American Health Organization’s regional mental health program. In addition, regarding the medical assistance, they indicated that ”an initial diagnosis had never been made” to determine the type of disorders from which the victims suffer and, consequently, the “type of treatment they should receive.” The representatives advised that Patria Portugal “had requested health care services [...] when she required them,” although “incidents have arisen that have prevented her from receiving the medical care ordered.” The