Priority Areas of Guatemala.” It contended that as a result of this, care and treatment coverage of persons with HIV/AIDS in the country has been increased. It claimed that beginning in 2006 and 2007, all people living with HIV/AIDS, who meet the clinical requirements to begin antiretroviral treatment and who go to the treatment clinics, are being covered. 50. In its written submission of 2012, the State submitted individualized information on the treatment tracking most of the alleged victims, in particular, scheduled appointments and visits they made. It asserted that “despite the difficulties faced in the purchase and supply of antiretroviral drugs” the alleged victims have not stopped receiving treatment. It further claimed in its written submission of 2012 that the alleged victims receive antiretroviral medicines as well as services, tests and controls as required by the disease they are afflicted with. 51. With respect to the alleged victims about whom no information was submitted, the State argued that the units where they are treated refused to report how they are provided care under the argument of confidentiality of the cases. It contended that one of the petitioners, Dr. Arathoon, is the head of the “Luis Angel García family clinic/San Juan de Dios General Hospital, a facility where three of the alleged victims receive care and which has not sent in any information under the argument of confidentiality of the records. 52. The State also argued in its written submission of 2012, that in some instances, alleged victims did not keep their appointments at the health care facilities. It also claimed that some of the alleged victims are inconsistent in attending their scheduled appointments, which is harmful to their health status, “which in short eludes the best intentions of the State to provide services and medical supplies in a timely fashion.” 53. In light of the petitioners’ information on the lack of adequate treatment for the alleged victims as well as on the deterioration of their health status, the State argued that said information must be verified “inasmuch as it does not provide the source nor the health status on the latest date when the patients infected with HIV/AIDS visited the health service.” It further contended that “even though it is true people experience difficulties over the course of the infection, the important thing in this case and over these 6 years is the current wellbeing of each person as a consequence of the treatment provided.” 54. With respect to the death of the eight alleged victims, the State argued that “there is no clear evidence that it was due to non-availability of antiretroviral treatment provided to them by the Ministry of Health, because an opportunistic infection was coursing through some of them.” It claimed that it must be verified whether the deaths were the result of the lack of care and treatment by the State, of circumstances other than the infection or as a consequence of the refusal to seek the necessary care. Regarding this last point, the State contended that in the records of the treatment facilities, it appears that some persons abandoned their treatment. However, the State did not submit concrete information about this situation with regard to the eight deceased persons. 55. Concerning this aspect, the State argued that there are complications and consequences of the disease itself that are totally independent of the quality of care and treatment that is provided, that can compromise the lives of the persons. It also contended that adherence to treatment and keeping doctors appointments is a very important component, which depends on the person his or herself and not on the provision of the health care service. The State claimed that it is important to note that even under antiretroviral treatment, extraneous circumstances may arise, which lead to the death of a patient. 56. With respect to the list of family members and loved ones of the alleged victims submitted by the petitioners, the State raised different challenges. It argued that it is not possible for the alleged victims themselves to also appear on this list as family members or loved ones of other alleged victims. It also contended that persons are included on the list, who do not have any close tie to the alleged victims, such as friends, aunts/uncles, nephews/nieces, and [life] partners and, therefore, should be excluded. It claimed that the surnames of some family members or loved ones did not match the surname of the alleged victims. 8