19 [a]go […] the treatment beg[an], therefore she ha[d] to take a license without salary for 3 months, but due to the pressure at her work, she interrupt[ed] the treatment, without being able to continue with it in the Social Security, for not having worked in the last 3 months.” Despite that, the representative highlighted that “[t]he State [has] not inform[ed] regarding the treatment that has been established in favor of Mrs. De La Cruz [by] the State doctors [that] […] diagnos[ed her such] post-traumatic stress and adaptation disorder.” 56. The Commission stated that it “values that Dr. De La Cruz Flores has State health care and access to medication.” Nevertheless, it “request[ed] the Court to urge the State to adopt the measures and mechanisms necessary to provide medical and psychological treatment, as well as free provision of medication to the [victim].” 57. The Court takes note of the various initiatives of a general character related with the health care carried out by the State, and, without prejudice to it, reiterates that, in addition to the measures adopted in the framework of the general system of health, it is necessary that the State grants preferential attention to the victim.27 In this way, and with the effects of evaluating the adaptation of these and other activities in the means of reparation ordered by this Tribunal in the present case, it is necessary for the State to refer only and concretely to the activities of the medical offering in favor of Mrs. De La Cruz Flores developed prior to the sentence, that excludes those derived from the support of social security that the victim made herself as a worker for the State. In this sense, the Tribunal reminds the State that the medical and psychological treatment that has been ordered as a means of reparation by this Court and that, therefore, Mrs. De La Cruz must be the beneficiary of a treatment differentiated by her quality as a victim, in relation to the treatment and procedures that must be made for her being attended in the public hospitals. 58. Regarding the psychological-psychiatric attention, the Tribunal refers to that signaled in its Judgment in the sense that the State must offer said attention “through the State health services” which clearly refers to the Peruvian national institutions.28 Along the same lines, the Court reminds that this measure seeks to contribute to the reparation of the psychological damages derived from the violations committed, and the modality ordered for its fulfillment cannot be modified during the stage of supervision of compliance with the Judgment.29 Therefore, the State is prohibited from providing the psychological treatment outside its territory. Taking into account that provided, the Tribunal considers that it needs updated, ordered, and complete information from the representatives that includes, if it be the case, information regarding whether it is the desire of Mrs. De La Cruz to not receive psychological-psychiatric treatment in Peru. 3. Duty to provide a scholarship for training and professional development (seventh operative paragraph of the Judgment) 59. Regarding the duty to provide to Mrs. De La Cruz Flores a scholarship that would permit her to receive training and professional development, the State informed that she “request[ed] to receive a Postgraduate Diploma from the Autonomous University of Barcelona (Spain) that is valued at 4,100 Euros and also that the State has to assume the costs of travel, stay, lodging, internal movements, and book expenses, which comes to a total of 7,82[5] Euros, according to that indicated in the letter presented by her to 27 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Supervision of Compliance of Judgment and Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 8, 2009, Considering thirtieth; Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Supervision of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 8, 2009, Considering fifty-fourth, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Supervision of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 9, 2009, Considering thirtieth. 28 Cf. Case of De la Cruz Flores, supra note 5, Operative Paragraph 5. 29 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia. Supervision of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of January 31, 2008, Considering fifteenth.