11. The petitioners noted that the alleged victims living with HIV/AIDS are economically disadvantaged persons and most of them live far away from Guatemala City. They explained that, like other persons living with HIV/AIDS in a generally similar stage of the condition, it is imperative for them to receive medical care and antiretroviral medicines, as well as the appropriate clinical testing to monitor the development of the disease. Notwithstanding, they claimed that since the time they were diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, from the 1990s to 2006, the State has not provided any type of medical treatment. Specifically, they argued that the State has not granted comprehensive treatment, has not conducted the necessary cell count testing and has not dispensed antiretroviral drugs. 12. The representatives argued that as of 2002, the Ministry of Health had only distributed antiretroviral drugs to 27 persons, none of whom are alleged victims in this case. They alleged that this situation is a violation of the Constitution and, specifically, the General Law to fight HIV and AIDS, which was approved in 2002. 13. As to the right to judicial protection, the petitioners claimed that a group of almost twenty persons living with HIV/AIDS sent a letter on May 27, 2002, to then President of the Republic Alfonso Portillo, requesting that the appropriate steps be taken to ensure care for all persons living with HIV/AIDS. They said that they cited as a basis for their request Article 48 of the Law on HIV/AIDS, which establishes that every person must receive comprehensive care immediately and equally with respect to other persons. They claimed that the President of the Republic did not respond to said communication and that, consequently, thirteen of the alleged victims filed a special appeal for constitutional relief (an amparo claim) with the Constitutional Court, which was denied. 14. The petitioners asserted that prior to the ruling of the Constitutional Court, in August 2002 they held a meeting with the President of the Republic. They claimed that he informed them that he would order the transfer of a special budget allocation of 500,000.00 Quetzals to cover treatment for needy persons living with HIV/AIDS, while a serious and committed State policy was drawn up and implemented. The petitioners contended that said transfer of funds was carried out and only served to provide drugs to 80 persons living with HIV/AIDS, none of who were alleged victims in the instant case. They also noted that they do not know why those persons were selected to receive the treatment. 15. The alleged victims’ representatives noted that the Constitutional Court denied the amparo claim because of the President’s decision to appropriate the aforementioned budget outlay, which was of a special nature. They claimed that the Constitutional Court “did not address the real objective of the amparo suit,” which was the need to issue a general and universal policy aimed at ensuring access to health and therefore, keeping persons living with HIV/AIDS alive. They contended that the ruling on the amparo claim only took into account the short-term presidential initiative, in both the quantitative and qualitative dimensions, which did not meet the expectations of comprehensive treatment required by the claimants. They claimed that the President’s concession was “a temporary and insignificant fix in light of the magnitude of the problem and, therefore, his solution was ineffective.” 16. The petitioners alleged that in 2006 a process slowly got under way to move patients under the treatment of the organization Doctors without Borders to public health care units. They claimed that the treatment provided by said non-profit organization, which was unaffiliated with the State, was sporadic and, in some instances, not adequate enough to provide a comprehensive response to the situation of all the alleged victims. 17. They contended that the process of moving patients was highly complex, mostly because of the State’s inability to make adequate physical facilities, as well as the required medicines, available. They further alleged that the treatment was exclusively focused in Guatemala City, which had a serious effect on the alleged victims, who did not reside in said location. They claimed that the alleged victims living in Coatepeque (3), Retalhuleu (16), Mazatenango (2), San Marcos (9) and Quetzaltenango (2) had no access to treatment and drugs, inasmuch as their economic situation is precarious and they are not in a position to be able to afford transportation costs to the capital city. 3