20 the Ministry of Justice on [September 5, 2007].” “[I]n agreement with that informed by the organs of the Ministry of Education in charge of the granting of scholarships, the [P]eruvian State only has the power to grant scholarships within its jurisdiction.” Also, it indicated that “the Post-Graduate degree required by the interested party is not given in Schools of Post-Graduate Study of the Peruvian Educational Entities” and that “[i]n the scholarships for Post-Graduate degrees of an international character that international organizations send, the post-graduate degree required by [Mrs.] [D]e [La] Cruz does not exist. […] Therefore, it is materially impossible for [her] request to be fulfilled.” Nevertheless, in the private hearing, the State informed that it is transmitting “the corresponding documents to evaluate if any possibility exists or not to materialize some level of reintegration in favor of Mrs. De La Cruz Flores.” Previously, the State informed that “it had carried out meetings of coordination with the representatives of the Ministry of Education, and [that] the advances of the same would arrive at the brevity of the case.” 60. The representative signaled that “[t]he requests for training made by [Mrs.] De La Cruz [connected with the specialization of pediatric studies], [were] rejected by the public institution that offers services – ESSALUD.” In this way, “[b]efore the repeated lack of fulfillment of the State and facing the medical responsibilities that it […] assign[ed in the area of adult services], the [d]octor De La Cruz, […] look[ed] to obtain the medical training necessary to face said responsibilities.” Also, “she registered for the Diploma of Post-Graduate in Medicine of Aging that is offered in the Post-Graduate School of the Autonomous University of Barcelona (Spain), during the per[i]od of [N]ovember 2007 to [J]une 2008, assuming the costs of registration, moving, and residing in Spain.” Also, the representative highlighted that “the State not only did not respond to the communications of the victim requiring the granting of the scholarships for her training and development, but neither – although it supposedly lacks financing – made any procedure before the Spanish government or foundations or Spanish agencies that grant scholarships to foreign students with the goal of obtaining a scholarship in favor of the victim.” Notwithstanding, the representative “recogniz[ed] the fact [of] the State having said that it will begin to make procedures to perform the reintegration of the training of the doctor De La Cruz [in] the University of Barcelona.” It fits to stress that, at this point, the representative highlighted that Mrs. De La Cruz “has been recognized since the year 2005 [until] 2008 for her work as a doctor in the Peruvian Institute of Social Security, attending to elder persons, [and becoming] the coordinator of the doctors in that area.” 61. The Commission “observ[ed] that the State limited itself to inform that it will continue making internal procedures” and that it “has not detailed which are the procedures that it is carrying forward nor when it foresees that they will be culminated. In this sense, the Commission […] request[ed] the Court to insist upon the State to present concrete information about the measures provided in order to give fulfillment to thi[s] point of the [J]udgment.” 62. Regarding this particular point, the Court observes “[t]hat the scholarship for studies in the present case had […] to be fulfilled with special compliance t[o] the time perio[d] establish[ed] in the Judgment.”30 For this not having occurred, it verified a scenario in which the victim sees the need to make all the processes of access to said training abroad, not only for the absence of a course in her specialty in the country, but also due to the lack of disposition of the State to offer a scholarship in any university or center of studies, alleging that there are always a series of obstacles or impediments for its concession. Taking into account that in the framework of the private hearing the State indicated that it is not making the processes in order to repay the expenses that Mrs. De La Cruz has incurred, this Tribunal considers that said possibility constitutes an appropriate modality to comply with that ordered in the seventh operative paragraph of 30 Cf. Case of Gómez Paquiyauri v. Peru. Supervision of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of May 3, 2008, Considering eighteenth.