9 with the Comprehensive Healthcare Service.12 Furthermore, the Court notes that some membership cards presented by the State include an expiry date, which have already passed. 25. The Court positively assesses the State’s different initiatives, which are general in nature, concerning its public health system. This notwithstanding, it deems it relevant to reiterate that in addition to the any measures the State adopts in the framework of the general health system, the State must offer preferential treatment to the victims.13 In this respect, the Tribunal stated that the State’s provision of social services to individuals cannot be confused with the reparation measures to which the victims of human rights violations are entitled, due to the specific harm caused by the violation.14 For this reason, the Court finds that the victims must receive a preferential treatment with respect to the steps they have to take in order to receive medical attention in public hospitals.15 26. Thus, so that this measure may achieve its restorative effect as provided for in the Judgment,16 the Tribunal finds that the provision of medical and psychological treatment must include: a) simple and differentiated procedures to register and update records in the corresponding health care systems, and the state officials responsible for carrying out these procedures must be aware of its restorative effect; b) free medical and psychological treatment that is appropriate, specialized, and comprehensive in accordance with each beneficiary’s individual health needs, including the health care, the provision of medicine,17 and any check-ups they require,18 in a comprehensive and effective manner, and for as long as may be necessary (as an obligation that must be both immediately complied with and continually implemented); c) coverage that addresses the full range of the beneficiaries’ health needs so as to avoid limitations that could render this reparation measure illusory; and, d) consider the particular needs and circumstances of each person seeking psychological care so that family and individual treatment can be provided based on the agreements reached with the beneficiaries, and, after an individual evaluation.19 Therefore, 12 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 20, 2009, Considering Clause 30. 13 Cf. Case of 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 8, 2009, Considering Clause 34; Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2010, Considering Clause 21, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 7, Considering Clause 28. 14 Cf. Case of González et al. ("Cotton Field") Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 529; Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay, supra note 13, Considering Clause 21, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 7, Considering Clause 28. 15 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 7, Considering Clause 28, and Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay, supra nota 13, Considering Clause 21. 16 Under paragraph 143 of the Judgment (supra Having Seen 1), in ordering the present reparation measure the Court took into account that “the forced disappearance of Mr. Santiago Gómez Palomino affected the physical and psychological health of his mother, daughter, sisters, and brother, as well as his cohabitee.” Thus, “[w]ith the aim of contributing to the redress of the damages,” the Tribunal ordered the State “to provide the medical and psychological treatment, through its specialized health instituions, required by all the victims [...] and for as long time as necessary. This treatment will be provided free of charge and will include any medicines and examinations so required. For this treatment, the consent of all beneficiaries must be obtained.” 17 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 9, para. 143; Case of Caso Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 14, 2010, Considering Clause 16, and Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, , supra note 12, Considering Clause 30. 18 19 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 9, para. 143. Cf. Case of 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 278; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 7, Considering Clause 30, and Case of