antiretroviral drugs, which must be taken life-long by people with HIV/AIDS,” had been available, and that the use of generic antiretroviral drugs could increase the coverage of the medical treatment for people living with HIV/AIDS in Guatemala.49 59. Consequently, they asked the Constitutional Court to decide the application for amparo as soon as possible; to declare that the State was obliged to guarantee the life of the presumed victims by a policy of procurement and non-discriminatory, systematic and daily distribution of the antiretroviral treatment, preferably high quality generic drugs that were available on the market, and to re-establish the legal situation of the applicants, ordering their immediate access to health and to life by immediate care under emergency policies.50 In response to the application, on August 1, 2002, the President of the Republic at the time submitted a brief to the Constitutional Court. He indicated that, in the case, “there was no evidence of any links between the applicants and the grievance denounced […] in which it appears that a popular cause is being invoked that can never be debated by means of an application for amparo,” and requested that the constitutional application for amparo be declared inadmissible and the applicants be required to pay the legal costs. 51 60. On October 10, 2002, the General Directorate for Health Regulation, Monitoring and Control (hereinafter “DGRVC”), sent a communication to the Constitutional Court advising that, on August 20, 2002, the President of the Republic had held a meeting with the Minister of Health and the President of ACSLCS, during which he authorized a special appropriation of 500,000.00 quetzals “to meet the requirements of people living with HIV/AIDS.” The DGRVC advised that this appropriation had been transferred by the Ministry of Finance to the Ministry of Health on September 2, 2002, for the treatment of 80 adults and 80 children.52 In this regard, on October 29, 2002, the applicants indicated, as arguments during a hearing, that it was true that the President of Guatemala had been willing to respond to the requests made in the initial application, owing to which 500,000.00 quetzals had been allocated to treat people with HIV/AIDS. Nevertheless, they asserted that “the reasons why the application for amparo was filed subsist because, although it is true that the money has been deposited, for one reason or another it has not been possible to start the antiretroviral treatment for the people living with HIV/AIDS” and, therefore, the State had not complied with its constitutional obligation to treat all those living with that diagnosis, because it was only providing treatment to 27 of them. 53 61. In this regard, the applicants indicated that the State had accepted that it was unable to provide antiretroviral treatment to the approximately 4,000 persons living with HIV or who had developed AIDS, because this treatment cost between eight thousand and ten thousand quetzals (Q.8,000.00 and Q.10,000.00) a month, without including the 49 24). 50 and 41). 51 44-47). Cf. Application for amparo filed before the Constitutional Court on July 26, 2002 (evidence file, folios 20Cf. Application for amparo filed before the Constitutional Court on July 26, 2002 (evidence file, folios 39 Cf. Brief of Alfonso Portillo submitted to the Constitutional Court on August 1, 2002 (evidence file, folios The DGRVC provided the following information: (1) it had been decided to provide treatment to 80 adults and 80 children; (2) the terms of reference had been prepared for the procurement of the antiretroviral drugs, which was subject to tender; (3) the 500,000 quetzals had been deposited with UNDP to expedite and ensure the transparency of the procurement process, and (4) the human resources required for treating these people were being hired. Cf. Brief of the General Directorate for Health Regulation, Monitoring and Control of October 10, 2002 (evidence file, folio 57). 52 Cf. Brief of October 29, 2002, outlining the arguments of the applicants during the hearing (evidence file, folios 60 and 61). 53 20