5 19. That the Commission warned that, “the term established by the Court expired long ago and the aforementioned reparation measure has not been fully complied with”. 20. That even though the State did not submit a copy of the publication made in the Official Gazette, the Court takes into account that the representatives confirmed such publication and that the Commission made reference to "partial compliance with this point of the Judgment”. Therefore, the Court finds that Peru partially complied with the orders of the Court. Moreover, the Court calls upon the State to perform any necessary procedures for publication of the appropriate parts of the Judgment in another nationwide circulation newspaper. * * * 21. That as regards the health treatment for the relatives of the victim (Operative Paragraph No. 10 of the Judgment), the State informed that it ordered their incorporation to a comprehensive health insurance and that “procedures are being carried out to provide, free of any charge and through specialized health care institutions, medical and psychological treatment” to the relatives. 22. That the representatives indicated that the State “has not proven that the relatives [of the victim] are registered with the comprehensive health insurance or receiving any health care services under such insurance”. 23. That the Commission reported that the information sent by the State “does not include specific aspects that allow to evaluate if [...] it complies with its obligation to provide adequate treatment to help effectively improve the health conditions of the beneficiaries of the reparation”. 24. That the Court finds that, to this date, the State has not sent sufficient information to allow an evaluation of the level of compliance with the Judgment; therefore, more information should be submitted by Peru in this regard. * * * 25. That as regards the duty to implement education programs (Operative Paragraph No. 11 of the Judgment), the State indicated that procedures were carried out before the Ministry of Education in order to fully comply with the orders of the Court. 26. That the representatives indicated that there is no information “to prove that the relatives [of the victim] are receiving any benefits from the State as regards education”. 27. That the Commission stated that, “the case record does not show that specific and adequate measures have been adopted to satisfy the needs of the beneficiaries to allow them to effectively continue with their education”. 28. That the Court does not have sufficient information to evaluate compliance with this reparation measure; therefore, the State should be requested to specify all measures adopted and the specific results achieved in this respect. * * * 29. That as regards the duty to adopt the measures necessary for a criminal law reform in order to make it compatible with international standards regarding forced disappearance of persons (Operative Paragraph No. 12 of the Judgment), the State reported that changes have been made to criminal legislation that are “currently under review by the Justice