received on January 21, 2012, by a member of the Ombudsman for Health, who informed him that he was in charge of his health care needs because his case was a “special case,” and he made notes on Mr. Garcia Asto’s medical needs. After that, Mr. Garcia Asto was treated by a psychologist in the Hospital Cayetano Heredia of the Ombudsman of Health on February 11, 2011, and he was exonerated from payment, was given his I.D. and a second appointment was scheduled for the end of the month. Nevertheless, the representatives considered that “Mr. Garcia Asto’s health required specialized and timely care. Because the State did not provide such care in a timely manner, his physical and psychological health has deteriorated to a greater degree.” They also added that Mr. Garcia Asto had not yet received preferential treatment because of his status as a victim who suffered violations of his human rights, and that his health insurance ESSALUD that he has had as of six years ago stems from his employment relationship with a company and not with the State. Moreover, they reported that the provision of medications free of charge is still pending. 10. The Inter-American Commission stated that the information provided by the State was insufficient, although it considered the information provided by the representatives was a positive step regarding the meeting with the Health Ombudsman. Therefore, the Commission considered it “necessary that the Peruvian State report on the expectations had regarding continuity and permanence of this measure, on the measures adopted to ensure that care is not limited to psychological care and includes other areas in which Mr. Garcia Asto requires care, and on the measures taken to ensure the provision of free medications.” In its observations of November 12, 2013, the Commission noted with concern that after 7 years it had not yet taken steps to comply with this obligation. It also found that the implementation of health care services should be “differentiated, individualized, preferential, comprehensive, and provided through specialized institutions and personnel.” Considerations of the Court 11. The Court values the information on how Mr. García Asto is affiliated with the health system and thus can receive care in a health center, however the information about the ESSALUD insurance was not presented in a way that allows this Court to assess whether there is compliance with the State’s obligation. The Court reiterates that, in addition to the measures taken under the general health system, it is necessary that the State grant preferential treatment to the victim 6 as well as differential treatment in relation to the processing and procedures needed to receive care for the health-related damages as ordered in the Judgment. As for the provision of medications free of charge, the information provided by the State does not explain whether there is specific compliance with this point. For these reasons, and in order to evaluate implementation of this measure of reparation ordered by the Court, this measure will continue to be monitored by the Court. In this regard, it is necessary that in its next report, the State refer to the specific actions that are being carried out so that Mr. García Asto can effectively access free medical and psychological care as well as the provision of medications free of charge. 6 Cf. Case of 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Monitoring of Compliance with the Judgment and Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 8, 2009, Considering clause 30; Case of De la Cruz Flores V. Peru. Monitoring of Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 01, 2010, Considering clause 57, and Case of Gómez Palomino V. Peru. Monitoring of Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 05, 2011, Considering clause 25. 4