291. The representatives requested, as a measure of satisfaction, the issue of regulations to the National Mental Health Act (Law 26,657) of November 25, 2010, considering that “[t]he progress made in the said law with regard to rights remains merely a promise.” 292. The State argued that it “had ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2008 and that, since then, it had been in the process of adapting domestic law and practices in order to comply with the provisions of this treaty.” In particular, the State mentioned Laws Nos. 22,431 and 24,901, “which introduce the use of a single disability certificate and establish the system of basic integrated rehabilitation and training services for people with disabilities.” Regarding Law No. 22,431, the State asserted that “it creates a comprehensive protection system for persons with disabilities to ensure that they obtain medical care, education and social security, as well as granting them exemptions and exonerations that may, insofar as possible, counterbalance the disadvantage caused by their disability.” The State indicated that this law creates the mechanism of the single certificate of disability, which grants “free access to public transport […] in trains, metros, and buses, the right to free parking and transit […] and other benefits […] such as family allowances, tax exemption […], tourism [and] access to 100% coverage for treatment and for medicines for the disability diagnosed on their certificate. Regarding Law No. 24,901, the State indicated that this law “establishes a series of basic entitlements [such as] rehabilitation services [...], therapeutic educational services […], educational and assistance services” and provides “the coverage of specific services, alternative systems for the family group, and complementary benefits under social welfare mechanisms.” 293. Also, the State pointed out that “free and universal public health care has been and is one of the historic basic pillars of the Argentine State’s public policy, in compliance with the relevant international standards, and is without precedent in the region.” It indicated that “in addition to the benefits provided by the public health care service, there is an extra benefit for those who are unable to work and who do not have relatives with the duty to provide for their subsistence or, have such parents, but the latter are not in a situation to be able to provide assistance,” which is “covered by the federal program “Incluir Salud,” [which] provides medical and psychiatric care and also assistance by other specialized disciplines.” Considerations of the Court 294. The Court has already confirmed the impact produced on the right to the personal integrity of Sebastián Furlan due to lack of access to timely rehabilitation which would have provided him with better opportunities in life (supra paras. 197 to 203). Bearing in mind that the State has a legal framework that could prevent situations such as this from being repeated, the Court considers it important to enforce the obligation of active transparency in relation to the health and social security benefits to which people with disabilities are entitled in Argentina. This imposes on the State the obligation to provide the public with the maximum amount of information, in a proactive manner, regarding the information needed to obtain said benefits. This information should be comprehensive, easily understood, available in simple language and up to date. Also, given that large segments of the population do not yet have access to new technologies, and yet many of these rights may depend on their obtaining information on how to exercise them, in these circumstances the State must find efficient ways to fulfill its obligation of active transparency.459 459 Mutatis mutandi, Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 79 . Also, the extent of this obligation is specified in the resolution of the Inter-American Juridical Committee on the “Principles on the Right of Access to Information,” which establishes that “Public bodies should disseminate information about their functions and activities —including […] their policies, 92